On being wronged and being wrong

Abstract

If D commits a wrong against V, D typically incurs a corrective duty to V. But how should we respond if V has false beliefs about whether she is harmed by D’s wrong? There are two types of cases we must consider: (1) those in which V is not harmed but she mistakenly believes that she is (2) those in which V is harmed but she mistakenly believes that she is not. I canvass three views: The Objective View, The Subjective View and The Mixed View. The Objective View holds that V’s claim depends on the correct account of harm, rather than her false beliefs, and so D has a duty to offer damages to V in (2) but not in (1) in order to compensate her. The Subjective View holds that, for broadly anti-perfectionist reasons, V’s claim depends on her sincere beliefs, even if they are mistaken, and so D has a duty to compensate V in (1) but not in (2). The Mixed View holds that we should defer to her beliefs in (1) but not in (2), so D has a duty to compensate her in both cases. In this article, I argue that we should accept The Mixed View.

How to Identify Disadvantage: Taking the Envy Test Seriously

“…A premise of this argument is that some individuals are more likely than others to make these kinds of mistakes. By contrast, according to the non-comparative mistakes objection , we ought to reject the envy test on the grounds that it identifies disadvantage in a way that is sensitive to the mistakes that each individual may make when judging the value of an opportunity (Anderson, 1999; Slavny, 2017). This argument does not rely upon the premise that some individuals are more likely than others to make these kinds of mistakes.…”

“…In the next two sections, I introduce and respond to the mistakes objection, which has recently been defended by a number of critics of the envy test (Arneson, in press; Lazenby, 2016; Slavny, 2017). The objection states that the test is implausible because it allows the judgement that an individual is disadvantaged to be held hostage by mistaken judgements concerning the value of an opportunity.…”

“…In the next two sections, I introduce and respond to the mistakes objection, which has recently been defended by a number of critics of the envy test (Arneson, 2017;Lazenby, 2016;Slavny, 2017 The envy test implies that Masochist is not disadvantaged, even though she is disadvantaged when measured in objective terms. Accordingly, if we accept the envy test, Masochist's mistaken judgment may deny her corrective action, such as the offer of pain relief, to which she may otherwise be entitled.…”

Disadvantage, disagreement, and disability: re-evaluating the continuity test

“…The continuity test has been roundly criticised on the basis of a version of the mistakes objection (Arneson, 2018, p. 49;Lazenby, 2016;Slavny, 2017). The implementation problem led Dworkin (2002, p. 140) himself to shy away from his commitment to the continuity test in practice.…”