Conceptualizing Coercive Indoctrination in Moral and Legal Philosophy. Tiffany, E. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 2021. doi abstract bibtex This paper argues that there are compelling grounds for thinking that coercive indoctrination can defeat or mitigate moral culpability in virtue of being a form of non-culpable moral ignorance. That is, I defend a two-tier account such that what (at least partially) excuses an agent for a wrongful act is the agent’s ignorance regarding the moral quality of their act; and what excuses the defendant for their ignorance is that coercion or manipulation deprived the defendant of a fair opportunity to avoid that ignorance. I further argue that criminal defense theory would better track moral culpability were it to broaden existing defenses whose desert-base is moral ignorance—such as insanity or mistaken-belief self-defense—to include non-culpable ignorance due to diminished situational control. In this way, criminal law can plausibly recognize a defense of coercive indoctrination without postulating any new categories of defense. © 2021, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. part of Springer Nature.
@article{tiffany_conceptualizing_2021,
title = {Conceptualizing {Coercive} {Indoctrination} in {Moral} and {Legal} {Philosophy}},
doi = {10.1007/s11572-020-09556-3},
abstract = {This paper argues that there are compelling grounds for thinking that coercive indoctrination can defeat or mitigate moral culpability in virtue of being a form of non-culpable moral ignorance. That is, I defend a two-tier account such that what (at least partially) excuses an agent for a wrongful act is the agent’s ignorance regarding the moral quality of their act; and what excuses the defendant for their ignorance is that coercion or manipulation deprived the defendant of a fair opportunity to avoid that ignorance. I further argue that criminal defense theory would better track moral culpability were it to broaden existing defenses whose desert-base is moral ignorance—such as insanity or mistaken-belief self-defense—to include non-culpable ignorance due to diminished situational control. In this way, criminal law can plausibly recognize a defense of coercive indoctrination without postulating any new categories of defense. © 2021, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. part of Springer Nature.},
journal = {Criminal Law and Philosophy},
author = {Tiffany, E.},
year = {2021},
keywords = {12 Ignorance in other disciplinary fields, Coercive indoctrination, Culpability, Excuse, Fair opportunity, Ignorance in philosophy and logic, Manipulation, Moral ignorance, PRINTED (Fonds papier)},
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"J3zRwKFyeTGFez7Ew","bibbaseid":"tiffany-conceptualizingcoerciveindoctrinationinmoralandlegalphilosophy-2021","author_short":["Tiffany, E."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Conceptualizing Coercive Indoctrination in Moral and Legal Philosophy","doi":"10.1007/s11572-020-09556-3","abstract":"This paper argues that there are compelling grounds for thinking that coercive indoctrination can defeat or mitigate moral culpability in virtue of being a form of non-culpable moral ignorance. That is, I defend a two-tier account such that what (at least partially) excuses an agent for a wrongful act is the agent’s ignorance regarding the moral quality of their act; and what excuses the defendant for their ignorance is that coercion or manipulation deprived the defendant of a fair opportunity to avoid that ignorance. I further argue that criminal defense theory would better track moral culpability were it to broaden existing defenses whose desert-base is moral ignorance—such as insanity or mistaken-belief self-defense—to include non-culpable ignorance due to diminished situational control. In this way, criminal law can plausibly recognize a defense of coercive indoctrination without postulating any new categories of defense. © 2021, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. part of Springer Nature.","journal":"Criminal Law and Philosophy","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Tiffany"],"firstnames":["E."],"suffixes":[]}],"year":"2021","keywords":"12 Ignorance in other disciplinary fields, Coercive indoctrination, Culpability, Excuse, Fair opportunity, Ignorance in philosophy and logic, Manipulation, Moral ignorance, PRINTED (Fonds papier)","bibtex":"@article{tiffany_conceptualizing_2021,\n\ttitle = {Conceptualizing {Coercive} {Indoctrination} in {Moral} and {Legal} {Philosophy}},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s11572-020-09556-3},\n\tabstract = {This paper argues that there are compelling grounds for thinking that coercive indoctrination can defeat or mitigate moral culpability in virtue of being a form of non-culpable moral ignorance. That is, I defend a two-tier account such that what (at least partially) excuses an agent for a wrongful act is the agent’s ignorance regarding the moral quality of their act; and what excuses the defendant for their ignorance is that coercion or manipulation deprived the defendant of a fair opportunity to avoid that ignorance. I further argue that criminal defense theory would better track moral culpability were it to broaden existing defenses whose desert-base is moral ignorance—such as insanity or mistaken-belief self-defense—to include non-culpable ignorance due to diminished situational control. In this way, criminal law can plausibly recognize a defense of coercive indoctrination without postulating any new categories of defense. © 2021, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. part of Springer Nature.},\n\tjournal = {Criminal Law and Philosophy},\n\tauthor = {Tiffany, E.},\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tkeywords = {12 Ignorance in other disciplinary fields, Coercive indoctrination, Culpability, Excuse, Fair opportunity, Ignorance in philosophy and logic, Manipulation, Moral ignorance, PRINTED (Fonds papier)},\n}\n\n","author_short":["Tiffany, E."],"key":"tiffany_conceptualizing_2021","id":"tiffany_conceptualizing_2021","bibbaseid":"tiffany-conceptualizingcoerciveindoctrinationinmoralandlegalphilosophy-2021","role":"author","urls":{},"keyword":["12 Ignorance in other disciplinary fields","Coercive indoctrination","Culpability","Excuse","Fair opportunity","Ignorance in philosophy and logic","Manipulation","Moral ignorance","PRINTED (Fonds papier)"],"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}}},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"http://bibbase.org/zotero-group/science_et_ignorance/1340424","dataSources":["zX4acseCDM6D58AW7","5XkfmA9xajmKjWGio","NTvuMntpta5z9CAbT"],"keywords":["12 ignorance in other disciplinary fields","coercive indoctrination","culpability","excuse","fair opportunity","ignorance in philosophy and logic","manipulation","moral ignorance","printed (fonds papier)"],"search_terms":["conceptualizing","coercive","indoctrination","moral","legal","philosophy","tiffany"],"title":"Conceptualizing Coercive Indoctrination in Moral and Legal Philosophy","year":2021}