Some doubts about argument by hypothetical

California Law Review

Volumn 88, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 813-

  Robinson, Paul H ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0041906858     PISSN: 00081221     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/3481195     Document Type: Article

References (5)

1. 88 CALIF. L. REV. 791 (2000).
2. Id. at 792.
3. The label "luck-skeptic" is admirably short but is ambiguous. Is the "luck-skeptic" skeptical of relying upon or of rejecting moral luck? Also, by focusing on "luck" the label seems a bit too narrow. There could be any number of reasons that turns one to believe that resulting harm is insignificant.
4. For a recent example, see LEO KATZ, ILL-GOTTEN GAINS: EVASION, BLACKMAIL, FRAUD, AND KINDRED PUZZLES OF THE LAW (1996). See also LEO KATZ, BAD ACTS AND GUILTY MINDS: CONUNDRUMS OF THE CRIMINAL LAW (1987).
5. For a recent example, see LEO KATZ, ILL-GOTTEN GAINS: EVASION, BLACKMAIL, FRAUD, AND KINDRED PUZZLES OF THE LAW (1996). See also LEO KATZ, BAD ACTS AND GUILTY MINDS: CONUNDRUMS OF THE CRIMINAL LAW (1987).