Ever since J. L. Austin's famous "plea for excuses," if not before, the standard account of the distinction between a justification and an excuse has been this: one has a justification for what one has done just in case one did not do wrong in doing it; one has an excuse, just in case one lacks a justification (that is, one did do wrong), but is nonetheless not to be blamed for what one did.1 There is an excuse, then, if there is reason or grounds for not imputing blameworthiness despite the presence of wrongdoing. There is an analogue to this concept of an excuse that has strangely escaped the notice of all but a few.
