scholarly journals Complicity and Lesser Evils: A Tale of Two Lawyers

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Luban
Keyword(s):  
Lesser Evils

Petróleo y minería

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 279-304
Author(s):  
Víctor Rodríguez Padilla
Keyword(s):  
Latin America ◽  
Natural Gas ◽  
Environmental Degradation ◽  
Empirical Approach ◽  
Social Tensions ◽  
Lesser Evils ◽  
America Latina

En este artículo se analiza de manera empírica la política mexicana en materia de extracción de petróleo, gas natural y otros minerales para discernir su naturaleza y alcance. Se concluye que el aprovechamiento de estos recursos se inscribe en un esquema extractivista que beneficia primordialmente a las empresas del ramo y se aleja del neoextractivismo practicado por gobiernos progresistas en América Latina. Asimismo, se señala que el extractivismo petrolero se ha potenciado con la liberalización de 2013–2014. En este marco, la degradación ambiental, las tensiones sociales y el agotamiento prematuro del patrimonio geológico son considerados como males menores de un progreso irrenunciable. Taking an empirical approach, this article analyzes policies in Mexico concerned with the extraction of petroleum, natural gas and other minerals to establish their nature and reach. It concludes that the exploitation of these resources falls into an extractivist framework that primarily benefits the businesses of this industry and has moved away from neoextractivism as carried out by progressive governments in Latin America. Therefore, this article demonstrates that petroleum extractivism has been strengthened with the liberalization of 2013–14. In this framework environmental degradation, social tensions and the premature depletion of geological assets are considered lesser evils of unavoidable progress.

Should a Criminal Code Distinguish Between Justification and Excuse?

1992 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 215-235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miriam Gur-Arye
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
The Other ◽  
Extreme Pressure ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Lesser Evils ◽  
Special Circumstances ◽  
Self Defence

Criminal law defences may be classified as either “justification” or “excuse”. A justification negates the wrongfulness of the conduct. The following are considered justifications: law enforcement, self-defence and lesser evils. An excuse, on the other hand, negates only the culpability of the actor for wrongful conduct. Under special circumstances, such as extreme pressure, it is considered unfair to blame the actor for the violation of the norm. Insanity and duress are typical excuses.

Lesser Evils: A Closer Look at the Paradigmatic Justification

2005 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
pp. 611-643 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry Alexander
Keyword(s):  
Lesser Evils

Unpacking Justifications

2021 ◽  
pp. 440-468
Author(s):  
A P Simester
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The Common ◽  
Lesser Evils ◽  
Self Defence

This chapter examines justifications. The common law knows a range of rationale-based defences according to which otherwise pro tanto wrongs may become permitted. By articulating justificatory defences like self-defence and necessity, the legal system adds the interstitial nuance that its prohibitions require. Unlike most other justifications, however, lesser-evils necessity is unconfined by reference to specific contexts, such as protecting oneself from attack or executing an arrest. Its field of application is amorphous and open-ended. The chapter then considers why necessity differs from those other, ‘primary’, justifications. It develops two theses: wrong-dependence and justification-dependence. In wrong-dependence, whether a person’s offence is justified depends on the type of (pro tanto) wrong that offence is. In justification-dependence, whether a person’s offence is wrong (simpliciter) depends on the type of justification that the person has. The chapter argues that cases of lesser-evils necessity are special, in that they are cases of a justified wrong. By contrast, primary justifications such as self-defence do not involve a wrong but only a pro tanto one. The importance of urgency requirements in rationale-based defences is also discussed.

Exploring the Intricacies of the Lesser Evils Defense

2005 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
pp. 645-679 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth W. Simons
Keyword(s):  
Lesser Evils

scholarly journals Review: Lesser Evils: Ten Quartets by Gary Soto

1989 ◽  
Vol ESS-9 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-86
Author(s):  
Carl R. Shirley
Keyword(s):  
Lesser Evils

Bellamy on Dirty Hands and Lesser Evils: A Response

2009 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 529-540 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen A. De Wijze ◽  
Tom L. Goodwin
Keyword(s):  
War On Terror ◽  
Philosophical Issue ◽  
Dirty Hands ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Uncritical Acceptance ◽  
Lesser Evils

This article offers a response to Alex Bellamy's article ‘Dirty Hands and Lesser Evils in the War on Terror’. It outlines deep errors in his claims about ‘dirty hands’ and ‘lesser evils’. Essentially, these errors result from his failure to grapple with the complexity of dirty hands theory, coupled with his uncritical acceptance that dirty hands scenarios are essentially defined as a clash between a public and private morality. Furthermore, we argue that Bellamy's distinction between ‘dirty hands’ and ‘lesser evils’ is a spurious one since all dirty hands cases require a choice between lesser evils. In addition, we reject his claim that dirty hands makes no political sense. For illustrative purposes, we then briefly examine one problematic philosophical issue which needs attention if the notion of dirty hands is to be taken seriously. Finally, we demonstrate the usefulness of the concept of dirty hands by applying it to the issue of torture in the so-called ‘war on terror’.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document