Rectification Versus Aid: Why the State Owes More to Those it Wrongfully Harms

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Are the state’s obligations to victims of its own wrongdoing greater than to persons who have suffered from bad luck? Many people endorse an affirmative answer to this question. Call this the <jats:italic>Difference View</jats:italic>. This view can seem arbitrary from the perspective of the victims in question; why should a victim of bad luck, who is just as badly off through no fault of her own, be entitled to less assistance from the state than a victim of state-caused wrongful harm? This paper defends a qualified version of the Difference View, the <jats:italic>Threshold Version of the Difference View</jats:italic>. According to this view, all disadvantaged persons, no matter what the cause of their disadvantage, must be compensated until they reach a minimum threshold of wellbeing; however, among disadvantaged persons above this threshold, full compensation is owed for those who are victims of state wrongdoing, whereas full compensation is not necessarily owed to those who are disadvantaged due to bad luck.</jats:p>