Barbara Levenbook

In the sense in which "criminal harm" is used in this essay, to say an act is criminally harmful is not to imply that the act is against the law, but rather that there is a good reason why the act should be against the law. This essay is a guide to the literature to date on a number of questions surrounding criminal harm: (1) Should Criminal Law Be Restricted to Criminal Harm? (2) Evaluating Definitions of "Criminal Harm," (3) Four Families of "Criminal Harm" Definitions, and, very briefly, the matter of (4) Why Harm Justifies Prohibitions.

This essay presents a new theory of statutory application that is superior to two competitors. One of the competitors claims that statutory directives apply to act-tokens fitting the legislature's intention. The other holds that statutes apply to act-tokens that are of the genuine kinds named by the classifying words. These theories solve certain problems badly or not at all, respectively: (1) accounting for the capacity of statutes for epistemic guidance; and (2) avoiding literalism. Both do a limited job of accounting for the rationality of statutory promulgation. The theory developed here, social salience theory, does better on all counts. According to social salience theory, the default position is that statutes apply to act-tokens that are socially salient, given the linguistic and social contexts. The departure from that position is also social, produced by conventions to defer to experts on the statute's applications to particular cases

Dworkin's theoretical disagreement argument, developed in Law's Empire, is presented in that work as the motivator for his interpretive account of law. Like Dworkin's earlier arguments critical of legal positivism, the argument from theoretical disagreement has generated a lively exchange with legal positivists. It has motivated three of them to develop innovative positivist positions. In its original guise, the argument from theoretical disagreement is presented as ‘the semantic sting argument’. However, the argument from theoretical disagreement has more than one version. This article briefly discusses two versions and the leading replies to them, then focuses on the most influential version, directed at Hartian positivism. The article surveys the leading positivist rejoinders to the recast version, indicating key Dworkinian replies or assessing the strength of these rejoinders, and concludes with a rejoinder of its own, making a new case that the argument from theoretical disagreement isn't fatal for Hartian legal positivism

This chapter discusses the retroactivity problem and how it arises when the idea that events occurring after a person’s life can harm that person is pursued. The common objection to this dilemma is the “no subject” type of response. The retroactivity problem is the result of making several assumptions jointly, many of which are initially plausible but none of which are actually defended. The first of these assumptions is referred to as Worse-Off, which states that an event harms a person only if it makes him worse off than he would have been if the event had not occurred. The second assumption, implied by the first, is referred to as Welfare, which states that an event harms a person only if it makes it the case that his welfare is lower than it would have been if the event had not occurred.

I defend the claim that posthumous harm is possible against a simple but powerful and appealing argument for the impossibility of harm from posthumous events. I produce a counterargument against one of its assumptions. My conclusion is that the boundaries of welfare-affecting events may extend beyond the existence of the person whose welfare is in question. My case for rejecting the contrary claim avoids an objection to some familiar arguments for posthumous harm and is superior to another argument for posthumous harm. To my knowledge, the case for posthumous harm presented here is a novel one, though it is of the same form as arguments made in 1984 by Feinberg and Parfit. My case for posthumous harm is not complete, for I argue for the satisfaction of what many people regard as only a necessary condition for harm. But I hope to have cleared away one obstacle to the possibility of posthumous harm

Dworkin’s dignity framework has little explanatory value for one moral topic for which it should be especially suited: paternalistic intervention by one adult with another. The dignity framework has little epistemic value for morality regarding paternalism. Dworkin’s conception of dignity is too inchoate to illuminate why and when individual paternalism is wrong, all things considered. Dignity does somewhat better at illuminating why some types of individual paternalism are pro tanto wrong; but not other types. Moreover, the conception of dignity cannot be refined by the process described above and retain any epistemic value on this matter. One would expect that a very natural -- indeed, a central -- use of the conception of dignity dHedgehogs would be to explain and illuminate moral claims about paternalism. That Dworkin’s conception of dignity largely fails to do so is, therefore, particularly important.

This essay is aimed at those moral philosophers who recognize a certain category of negative moral rights, but refuse to recognize a similar category of positive moral rights. That category consists of moral rights normally held by human beings. Such rights may be called "natural moral rights." My thesis is that if there is a natural negative right not to be killed, then -- contra Thomson, Nozick and others -- there must be at least one natural positive right, which might be called a "right not to be allowed to die."

A familiar jurisprudential view is that statutes have the content the legislature intended. Scott Soames has challenged this view in one form while giving credence to it in another. The burden of his recent publications on the subject is that while legislative intent in the form of legislative purpose does not determine statutory content, some legislative intentions do. I maintain that Soames inflates the role of legislative intentions and ignores a source of pragmatic information that does the bulk of the work of determining the linguistic content of statutes.