Some jurists use the criterion of fault as the philosophical basis of civil liability. This article, aims to exploring relationship between this criterion and some epistemological, ethical and ontological debates; Or to be more precise, dependence of using this criterion on some main philosophical debates. It has been argued that Fault-based civil liability (1) at least in some of its versions, implies free will; But not in all its versions; That is, it can be impartial to philosophical disputes over free will, (2) depends on the idea of naturalism about human persons and the idea of nature as a deterministic mechanism, (3) In combination with cognitivism, implies realism; But again, not in all its versions, (4) when the fault is considered non-personal, is not consistent with non-realism but it does not depend on taking sides in naïve-critical realism debate and at last (5) considering fault as non-personal, in itself does not implies cognitivism or non-cognitivism, but in the right and justice paradigm, implies cognitivism.
