Fault is one of the fundamental concepts in the system of civil liability and has traditionally been regarded as the most important basis for attributing liability in private law. However, examining this concept solely within the framework of legal rules is insufficient; a proper understanding requires attention to the philosophical foundations of responsibility and moral blameworthiness as well. In legal discourse, fault generally refers to conduct that deviates from the standard of reasonable behavior accepted in society and consequently causes harm to another person. Nevertheless, the fundamental question is why such conduct should give rise to liability and what philosophical basis justifies this attribution.This study adopts an analytical approach to examine the concept of fault in light of several major theories in the philosophy of law. In this context, the relationship between fault and concepts such as human free will, moral responsibility, and justice is explored. On the one hand, the theory of corrective justice, rooted in Aristotelian thought, regards fault as a basis for restoring the imbalance created between the injured party and the wrongdoer. On the other hand, certain utilitarian perspectives view fault as an instrument for preventing harmful conduct and promoting social efficiency.