<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Glavaničová, Daniela</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The Food Thief: Alleviation of Responsibility in Terms  of All-Things-Considered Obligations</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Filozofia</style></secondary-title><translated-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The Food Thief: Alleviation of Responsibility in Terms  of All-Things-Considered Obligations</style></translated-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">All-things-considered</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Eligibility</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Responsibility</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">State of necessity</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2019</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">https://www.sav.sk/journals/uploads/12301531filozofia.2019.74.10.4.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">10</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">74</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">841-851</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">English</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">People sometimes have to steal food to survive. Yet it is unclear whether they are to be excused for doing so. A recent paper by Alejandra Mancilla argues for the rarely defended affirmative answer. About the same time, the Italyʼs Supreme Court of Cassation ruled that stealing a small amount of food when in extreme need does not constitute a crime. Given that food thieves in extreme need &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; be sometimes excused, the present paper aims to offer a semi-formal account of responsibility that makes space for the alleviation of responsibility in such ‘food thief’ scenario. I argue that a solution is buried in the notion of eligible strategy employed in an account of responsibility suggested by Matthew Braham and Martin van Hees. I argue that a possible answer to the issue of (in)eligibility can be provided in terms of all-things-considered obligations, or the lack thereof.</style></abstract><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">State</style></work-type><custom2><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Articles</style></custom2><custom3><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">841851</style></custom3></record></records></xml>