English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Pro

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Presents AI Discovery search usage as a premium feature

AI Discovery

Presents AI Discovery explain and summary usage as a premium feature

Content Analysis

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

1500 Top-up

3000 Top-up

Zendy Basic

2500 Top-up

Zendy Unlimited

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Both in criminal law and in philosophy, a distinction is made between those who can be held responsible and those who cannot. Those who can legitimately be held responsible are said to have the capacity for responsible behaviour (tilregnelighet), while those who cannot legitimately be held responsible lack capacity for responsible behaviour (utilregnelighet). But what exactly is capacity and incapacity for responsible behaviour? Is it possible to give a detailed philosophical theory of the content of those concepts which can avoid common objections and integrate common intuitions and practices?

A Revisionary Theoretical Framework of Responsibility: A Philosophical Exploration of Incapacity for Responsible Behaviour (utilregnelighet)