Moral agency is limited, imperfect, and structurally constrained. This is evident in the many ways we all unwittingly participate in widespread injustice through our everyday actions, which I call ‘structural wrongs’. To do justice to these facts, I argue that we should distinguish between summative and formative moral criticism. While summative criticism functions to conclusively assess an agent's performance relative to some benchmark, formative criticism aims only to improve performance in an ongoing way. I show that the negative sanctions associated (...) with summative responses are only justifiably imposed under certain conditions when persons exercise their agency wrongly — conditions that do not always hold for structural wrongs. Yet even in such cases we can still use formative responses, which are warranted whenever agents fall short of moral ideals. Expanding our repertoire of moral criticism to include both summative and formative responses enables us to better appreciate both the powers and limitations of our agency, and the complexity of moral life. (shrink)

I here press an often overlooked question: Why does the fairness of a sanction require an adequate opportunity to avoid it? By pressing this question, I believe I have come to better understand something that has long puzzled me, namely, what philosophers (and others) might have in mind when they talk about “true moral responsibility,” or the “condemnatory force” of moral blame, or perhaps even “basic desert.” In presenting this understanding of “condemnation” or of “basic desert,” I am presenting an (...) idea that I do not, myself, endorse—one to which I am, myself, opposed. I present and defend it, hoping that, if what I say accurately captures what people have in mind, it will also show how condemnation or desert, in this sense, can be left behind. (shrink)

The environmental crisis that faces the world today is sometimes seen to be the result of making wrong turns on the path to human development. This is especially so in terms of the technologies humans adopt, the way such technologies are powered, and the morality that is at the foundation of societies that develop and utilize such technologies. Humanity has come to the realization that the technologies that were ushered in with a fanfare and that may still enjoy considerable patronage (...) sometimes have a darker side that may exact a costly price. The situation would probably have been different if there had been credible alternatives waiting in the wings, but no such alternatives exist and the path to such alternative technologies will probably be fraught with even more dangers. The view in this paper is that the current environmental crisis is not so much a problem of making wrong choices in technology as it is a problem with the nature of our science: a science which stifles the growth of views that contradict the opinion at the centre. It argues that the discouragement of adventitious ideas is responsible for the lack of credible alternatives to current technologies and therefore the inability to discard technologies that are considered anachronistic. In view of the above, the paper argues for a liberalisation of science through the tolerance of heretical scientific views as well as alternative knowledge systems. It questions the morality of subscribing to a single method of science in an era where alternatives exist to every other human facility and argues, following Mill and Feyerabend, not only for the proliferation of technologies but also for the proliferation of sciences as a safeguard against scientific lethargy. (shrink)

In this paper I suggest that there is a way to make sense of blameworthiness for morally problematic actions even when there is no bad will behind such actions. I am particularly interested in cases where an agent acts in a biased way, and the explanation is socialization and false belief rather than bad will on the part of the agent. In such cases, I submit, we are pulled in two directions: on the one hand non-culpable ignorance is usually an (...) excuse, but in the case of acting in a biased way we feel some pull to find the agent blameworthy. I argue that agents are sometimes blameworthy, (where I really mean that they are blameworthy, and not just that it is permissible to reproach them), even if they do not have any bad will. I argue that although the paradigmatic account of blameworthiness is based on quality of will, we can and should be willing to allow that there are non-paradigmatic cases. I argue that the zone of responsibility can be extended to include acts that we are not fully in control of, and acts whose moral status we are non-culpably ignorant about at the time of acting. This extension of responsibility happens through a voluntary taking of responsibility. I argue that there are certain conditions under which we should take responsibility, and that when we do so, we genuinely are responsible. (shrink)