Christopher Ciocchetti

I argue that private property can facilitate autonomy by giving individuals the power to choose the kinds of actions in which they will engage. I argue that autonomy also requires certain material and legal conditions. The objects to which an individual has access shape his or her powers, vulnerabilities, and interests by facilitating certain kinds of actions while hindering others. When I have access to an automobile, I have the power to move myself great distances, I am vulnerable to gas shortages, and I have an interest in paved highways. Therefore, one can change one's powers, vulnerabilities, and interests by altering the objects that one uses. ;From this basis, I offer a Neo-Hegelian argument for private property. Private property is justified because it guarantees each individual some control over the powers, vulnerabilities, and interests that he or she has. Private property grants each individual exclusive use of an object. Exclusive use is necessary for autonomy because it allows the individual the ability to choose his or her powers, vulnerabilities, and interests. This enables him or her to choose the kind of life he or she will lead. Poverty severely limits the kinds of actions in which one can engage, thereby restricting one's autonomy. If private property is justified because it establishes some of the conditions necessary for autonomy, it must do so for everyone. ;This argument for private property has important implications for the bundle of rights that a property owner holds. I argue that the rights normally associated with free market capitalism are not fundamental to private property. Through Marx's account of alienation, I argue that the use of markets to distribute goods occasionally facilitates autonomy, but markets must be restrained in cases where commercialization and poverty threatens autonomy. Marx was wrong to believe that all commercial transactions are harmful; still I find that, in some cases, there are good reasons to believe that free markets are harmful

In this paper, I argue that the responsibility-affecting defect of psychopaths is their incapacity for responding to acts within relationships. I begin with Piers Benn's account of psychopaths as incapable of forming participant reactive attitudes. Benn argues that participant reactive attitudes are essentially communicative and the ability to form and understand participant reactive attitudes is crucial to being a member of the moral community. Against Benn, I argue, though participant reactive attitudes can be communicative, they are not essentially communicative. Instead, they can be simply expressive. Therefore, we must consider psychopaths members of the moral community, in Benn’s sense; however, psychopaths fail to interpret their actions as part of relationships. This inability renders punishment, as an attempt to rectify wrong relationships, inappropriate for psychopaths. Psychopaths have diminished responsibility, insofar as they have forfeited some rights by committing an offense, but are not appropriate candidates for punishment because they cannot understand its significance.

I examine emotional reactions to wrongdoing to determine whether they offer support for retributivism. It is often thought that victims desire to see their victimizer suffer and that this reaction offers support for retributivism. After rejecting several attempts to use different theories of emotion and different approaches to using emotions to justify retributivism, I find that, assuming a cognitive theory of emotion is correct, emotions can be used as heuristic guides much as suggested by Michael Moore. Applying this method to the actual emotional reactions of victims' relatives, however, does not find support for retributivism. Instead, it suggests punishment should be understood as part of a process of recovery with a complex set of demands. Retributive concerns can play a role in the process, but they don't have the priority that retributivism requires.

I argue that many philosophical arguments for veganism underestimate what is at stake for humans who give up eating animal products. By saying all that’s at stake for humans is taste and characterizing taste in simplistic terms, they underestimate the reasonable resistance that arguments for veganism will meet. Taste, they believe, is trivial. Omnivores, particular those that I label meaningful omnivores, disagree. They believe that eating meat provides a more meaningful meal, though just how this works proves elusive. Meaningful omnivores could find little in the philosophical literature to help them clarify and support their position until recently. A few philosophers have argued that our culinary practices involve something more significant than taste. I categorize these arguments into three kinds. They either argue that culinary practices are a form of artistic achievement, that our diet forms part of our identity, or that a specific diet facilitates honest engagement with the world. Each of these arguments connects some aspect of our culinary practices to living a meaningful life. I examine each argument to see if it can defend the meaningful omnivore’s position. In the end, I conclude that it cannot. Nonetheless, this argument has significant implications for the animal welfare movement. Given the intense suffering caused by contemporary animal agriculture, concern for meaning is not sufficient to justify eating meat and often dairy. Concern for meaning does, however, require that we look for ways to preserve and extend culinary traditions while making them more humane.

I argue that R.A. Duff’s and Sandra Marshall’s liberal-communitarian justification for punishment doesn’t account for a troubling kind of subordination that results from communicative punishment. Communicative punishment requires a specific interpretation of the nature of the wrong. I focus on victims with incorrect but plausible interpretations of the wrong they’ve suffered to illustrate how a victim’s view a community or other’s view. In the end, I suggest that conceptualizing wrongs as against individuals in relations, rather than as members of communities with shared values, minimizes this kind of subordination.

abstract I examine emotional reactions to wrongdoing to determine whether they offer support for retributivism. It is often thought that victims desire to see their victimizer suffer and that this reaction offers support for retributivism. After rejecting several attempts to use different theories of emotion and different approaches to using emotions to justify retributivism, I find that, assuming a cognitive theory of emotion is correct, emotions can be used as heuristic guides much as suggested by Michael Moore. Applying this method to the actual emotional reactions of victims’ relatives, however, does not find support for retributivism. Instead, it suggests punishment should be understood as part of a process of recovery with a complex set of demands. Retributive concerns can play a role in the process, but they don't have the priority that retributivism requires.