Centre for Applied Philosophy, University of Florida
Abstract
Third-party property insurance (TPPI) protects insured drivers who accidentally damage an
expensive car from the threat of financial ruin. Perhaps more importantly though, TPPI also protects
the victims whose losses might otherwise go uncompensated. Ought responsible drivers therefore
take out TPPI?
This paper begins by enumerating some reasons for why a rational person might believe that they
have a moral obligation to take out TPPI. It will be argued that if what is at stake in taking
responsibility is the ability to compensate our possible future victims for their losses, then it might
initially seem that most people should be thankful for the availability of relatively inexpensive TPPI
because without it they may not have sufficient funds to do the right thing and compensate their
victims in the event of an accident.
But is the ability to compensate one's victims really what is at stake in taking responsibility? The
second part of this paper will critically examine the arguments for the above position, and it will
argue that these arguments do not support the conclusion that injurers should compensate their
victims for their losses, and hence that drivers need not take out TPPI in order to be responsible.
Further still, even if these arguments did support the conclusion that injurers should compensate
their victims for their losses, then (perhaps surprisingly) nobody should to be allowed to take out
TPPI because doing so would frustrate justice