COMPENSATION AS MORAL REPAIR AND AS MORAL JUSTIFICATION FOR RISKS

Abstract

Can compensation repair the moral harm of a previous wrongful act?On the one hand, some define the very function of compensation as one of restoringthe moral balance. On the other hand, the dominant view on compensation is thatit is insufficient to fully repair moral harm unless accompanied by an act ofpunishment or apology. In this paper, I seek to investigate the maximal potentialof compensation. Central to my argument is a distinction between apologeticcompensation and non-apologetic compensation. Apologetic compensation, Iargue, is an act that expresses regret and apology by means of some offer of money,goods, or services. Non-apologetic compensation is an act that seeks to restore lossor harm without expressing regret or apology. In the paper, I defend the view thatacts of compensation can be apologetic and argue that such apologeticcompensation is sufficient for moral repair.