Abstract

Agents who wrongfully harm others often incur corrective duties to compensate their victims. But what about agents who wrongfully impose pure risks, that is, risks that never materialize? Adam Slavny (2023) argues that wrongdoers incur non-compensatory duties to provide risk-victims with ‘equivalent protection’ against future harms through insurance contributions. This paper challenges the scope of Slavny's proposal through two objections. The Asymmetry Challenge shows that insurance schemes often promote different values than those violated by the original risk imposition, failing the Responsiveness Thesis requirement for showing proportionally greater regard. The Contingency Challenge demonstrates that these schemes can sometimes leave risk- victims without remedy, making corrective response depend on morally arbitrary circumstances. To address these challenges, I argue for a more pluralistic picture of corrective duties that includes, but is not limited to, compensatory corrective duties for the wrong of pure risk imposition itself. This proposal not only expands the range of corrective duties beyond equivalent protection based on the specific values that pure risk imposition violates, but it also motivates rethinking our existing institutional mechanisms for providing corrective justice to risk-victims.