Abstract

The article’s main argument is that by demonstrating where both Gideon Rosen and Martin Montiminy fall short, we may set up a discussion between their opposing perspectives on moral responsibility. Rosen argues that an agent is blameworthy for his wrongdoing only if his action is an episode of clear-eyed akrasia or an upshot of an episode of clear-eyed akrasia. Denying this epistemic condition for moral responsibility, Montminy argues that an agent is to blame for his wrongdoing only if his action is a result of his belief which is not compatible with his ability. He is blameworthy only if his wrongdoing is due to his underperformance. He is to blame for his action only if he fails to do his reasonable best. However, the paper argues that Rosen’s view is problematic because its procedural epistemic obligations are vague. Though mostly, Montminy’s account appears to be unproblematic, it suffers from two problems: there is no necessary connection between reasonable belief and moral responsibility, and underperformance does not always make agents blameworthy. In order to avoid these problems, the paper, based on Montminy’s view, proposes a brief alternative that needs improvement. According to this alternative view, an agent’s blameworthiness for wrongdoing is a matter of the degree of being consistent in holding an epistemically reasonable belief. Hence, one’s degree of responsibility for action depends on consistency with epistemically reasonable belief.