According to the motivational thesis (MT), we are justified in performing an action if and only if we perform that action for the right reason(s). Proponents of MT disagree about how it is best interpreted—about what count as reasons of the right kind. In Fundamentals of Criminal Law, Andrew Simester criticises an interpretation offered by John Gardner. Here, I explore some of Simester's reasons for objecting to that interpretation, and I argue—partly on the basis of those same reasons—that Simester's own interpretation of MT should be revised. I conclude with a preliminary defence of an alternative interpretation, which I call the tripartite view of justification.
CITATION STYLE
Edwards, J. (2023). Justification and Motivation. Criminal Law and Philosophy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-023-09691-7
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.