Motivating Reasons, Moral Culpability, and Criminal Law

Abstract Consider the following argument: (1) Whether, or the degree, persons are morally culpable ultimately depends on the (final) reasons that motivate their actions; (2) The degree to which persons are morally culpable should be a central concern of criminal law; (3) Criminal law in many countries focuses more on the beliefs and intentions of agents and less on their motivating reasons; therefore (4) Criminal law in many countries is unjust and should be revised. The premises of this argument are appealing and widely accepted, yet its conclusion is radical. Therefore, the argument is interesting and important. However, the argument is not entirely clear in several respects, and the attempt to clarify it reveals several significant (although not necessarily decisive) doubts regarding its soundness. In this paper, I examine these doubts as well as a related, more general, lesson concerning normative arguments about the law.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence
Published
2025-01-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/cjlj.2024.23
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Free Will and Agency
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.43

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Motivating Reasons, Moral Culpability, and Criminal Law

Re’em Segev
1 citations
Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence
Free Will and Agency
1.43
article

Motivating Reasons, Moral Culpability, and Criminal Law

Re’em Segev
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Abstract Consider the following argument: (1) Whether, or the degree, persons are morally culpable ultimately depends on the (final) reasons that motivate their actions; (2) The degree to which persons are morally culpable should be a central concern of criminal law; (3) Criminal law in many countries focuses more on the beliefs and intentions of agents and less on their motivating reasons; therefore (4) Criminal law in many countries is unjust and should be revised. The premises of this argument are appealing and widely accepted, yet its conclusion is radical. Therefore, the argument is interesting and important. However, the argument is not entirely clear in several respects, and the attempt to clarify it reveals several significant (although not necessarily decisive) doubts regarding its soundness. In this paper, I examine these doubts as well as a related, more general, lesson concerning normative arguments about the law.

Canadian Journal of Law & JurisprudenceVol. 38(1)
Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
Hebrew University of Jerusalem, University of Toronto, Israel Science Foundation
Openalex Percentile: Top 23%
Free Will and Agency
1.43
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Motivating Reasons, Moral Culpability, and Criminal Law — Re’em Segev · Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS