Agent-Regret and the Social Practice of Moral Luck

Res Philosophica 94 (1):95-117 (2017)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Agent-regret seems to give rise to a philosophical puzzle. If we grant that we are not morally responsible for consequences outside our control, then agent-regret—which involves self-reproach and a desire to make amends for consequences outside one’s control—appears rationally indefensible. But despite its apparent indefensibility, agent-regret still seems like a reasonable response to bad moral luck. I argue here that the puzzle can be resolved if we appreciate the role that agent-regret plays in a larger social practice that helps us deal with bad moral luck. That agent-regret is a component in a social practice limits the questions that we can reasonably ask about it. While we can ask whether an experience of agent-regret is rational given the norms of this practice, we cannot ask the question that motivates the puzzle of agent-regret, viz. whether agent-regret is rationally defensible according to the Standard View.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2018-10-29
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Mortal Questions.[author unknown]
Moral Luck.Williams, B. A. O. & Nagel, T.

View all 17 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Accepting Moral Luck.Hartman, Robert J.

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
193 ( #20,158 of 46,408 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
74 ( #9,556 of 46,408 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.