This site has been permanently archived. This is a static copy provided by the University of Southampton.

TY - INPR ID - cogprints1468 UR - http://cogprints.org/1468/ A1 - Vincent, Nicole Y1 - 2001/// N2 - Third-party property insurance (TPPI) protects insured drivers who accidentally damage an expensive car from the threat of financial ruin. Perhaps more importantly though, TPPI also protects the victims whose losses might otherwise go uncompensated. Ought responsible drivers therefore take out TPPI? This paper begins by enumerating some reasons for why a rational person might believe that they have a moral obligation to take out TPPI. It will be argued that if what is at stake in taking responsibility is the ability to compensate our possible future victims for their losses, then it might initially seem that most people should be thankful for the availability of relatively inexpensive TPPI because without it they may not have sufficient funds to do the right thing and compensate their victims in the event of an accident. But is the ability to compensate one's victims really what is at stake in taking responsibility? The second part of this paper will critically examine the arguments for the above position, and it will argue that these arguments do not support the conclusion that injurers should compensate their victims for their losses, and hence that drivers need not take out TPPI in order to be responsible. Further still, even if these arguments did support the conclusion that injurers should compensate their victims for their losses, then (perhaps surprisingly) nobody should to be allowed to take out TPPI because doing so would frustrate justice. PB - Centre for Applied Philosophy, University of Florida KW - responsibility KW - law KW - liability KW - insurance KW - corrective justice KW - deterrence KW - retribution KW - no-fault TI - What is at stake in taking responsibility? Lessons from third-party property insurance AV - public ER -