Results for 'holding responsible'

986 found
Order:
  1. Holding Responsible in the African Tradition: Reconciliation Applied to Punishment, Compensation, and Trials.Thaddeus Metz - 2023 - In Maximilian Kiener, The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Responsibility. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. pp. 380-392.
    When it comes to how to hold people responsible for wrongdoing, much of the African philosophical tradition focuses on reconciliation as a final aim. This essay expounds an interpretation of reconciliation meant to have broad appeal, and then draws out its implications for responsibility in respect to three matters. First, when it comes to criminal justice, prizing reconciliation entails that offenders should be held responsible to “clean up their own mess,” i.e., to reform their characters and compensate victims (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  2. Holding Responsible Reconsidered.Larisa Svirsky - 2020 - Public Affairs Quarterly 34 (4):321-339.
    Following Strawson, many philosophers have claimed that holding someone responsible necessitates its being appropriate to feel or express the negative reactive attitudes (e.g., resentment) toward her. This view, while compelling, is unable to capture the full range of cases in which we hold others responsible in ordinary life. Consider the parent who holds her five-year-old responsible for not teasing his sister, or the therapist who holds her patient responsible for avoiding self-injurious behavior. Holding (...) in such cases requires enforcing normative expectations, but these norms can (and typically should) be enforced without involving the negative reactive attitudes. To demonstrate this, I consider how responsibility attributions function in psychotherapy, as well as in other contexts where the negative reactive attitudes do not have a natural home. (shrink)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  3. Being and holding responsible: Reconciling the disputants through a meaning-based Strawsonian account.Benjamin De Mesel - 2021 - Philosophical Studies 179 (6):1893-1913.
    A fundamental question in responsibility theory concerns the relation between being responsible and our practices of holding responsible. ‘Strawsonians’ often claim that being responsible is somehow a function of our practices of holding responsible, while others think that holding responsible depends on being responsible, and still others think of being and holding responsible as interdependent. Based on a Wittgensteinian reading of Strawson, I develop an account of the relation between (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  4. On being and holding responsible.Chauncey Maher - 2010 - Philosophical Explorations 13 (2):129-140.
    In his Responsibility and the moral sentiments , Wallace develops the idea that we should think of what it is to be morally responsible for an act in terms of norms for holding someone responsible for that act. Smith has recently claimed that Wallace's approach and those like it are 'fundamentally misguided'. She says that such approaches make the mistake of incorporating conditions for 'actively blaming' others into the basic conditions for being responsible, when in fact (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  5. No Making Responsible, We Might Say, Without Holding Responsible.Sebastián Figueroa Rubio - 2024 - Analisi E Diritto 24 (1):79-91.
    This article analyses some theses developed by John Gardner that deal with the relations between different concepts of responsibility and how these are useful for understanding the relationships between agency, reasons, and responsibility practises. In the first two sections, the text introduces the Aristotelian view developed by John Gardner, focussing on how he understood the relationships between the concepts of basic responsibility, consequential responsibility and prospective responsibility. Sections III. and IV. then review two challenges that arise from the author's treatment (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6. Children hold owners responsible when property causes harm.Celina K. Bowman-Smith, Brandon W. Goulding & Ori Friedman - 2018 - Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 147 (8):1191-1199.
    Since ancient times, legal systems have held owners responsible for harm caused by their property. Across 4 experiments, we show that children aged 3–7 also hold owners responsible for such harm. Older children judge that owners should repair harm caused by property, and younger children may do this as well. Younger and older children judge that owners should apologize for harm, even when children do not believe the owners allowed the harm to occur. Children are also as likely (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  7. Five perspectives on holding wrongdoers responsible in Kant.Benjamin Vilhauer - 2023 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 32 (1):100-125.
    The first part of this paper surveys five perspectives in Kant’s philosophy on the quantity of retribution to be inflicted on wrongdoers, ordered by two dimensions of difference – whether they are theoretical or practical perspectives, and the quantity of retribution they prescribe: (1) theoretical zero, the perspective of theoretical philosophy; (2) practical infinity, the perspective of God and conscience; (3) practical equality, the perspective of punishment in public law; (4) practical degrees, the perspective we adopt in private relations to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  8. Responsibility, Libertarians, and the “Facts as We Know Them”: A Concern-Based Construal of Strawson’s Reversal.David Beglin - 2018 - Ethics 128 (3):612-625.
    Here, I put forth a construal of P. F. Strawson’s so-called reversal, his view that what it means to be morally responsible is determined by our practices of holding responsible. The “concern-based” construal that I defend holds that what it means to be morally responsible is determined by the basic social concerns of which our practices are an expression. This construal, I argue, avoids a dilemma that Patrick Todd has recently raised for the reversal.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  9. Free will and the Asymmetrical Justifiability of Holding Morally Responsible.Benjamin Vilhauer - 2015 - Philosophical Quarterly 65 (261):772-789.
    This paper is about an asymmetry in the justification of praising and blaming behaviour which free will theorists should acknowledge even if they do not follow Wolf and Nelkin in holding that praise and blame have different control conditions. That is, even if praise and blame have the same control condition, we must have stronger reasons for believing that it is satisfied to treat someone as blameworthy than we require to treat someone as praiseworthy. Blaming behaviour which involves serious (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  10. Responsibility and the Condition of Moral Sense.Paul Russell - 2004 - Philosophical Topics 32 (1-2):287-305.
    Recent work in contemporary compatibilist theory displays considerable sophistication and subtlety when compared with the earlier theories of classical compatibilism. Two distinct lines of thought have proved especially influential and illuminating. The first developed around the general hypothesis that moral sentiments or reactive attitudes are fundamental for understanding the nature and conditions of moral responsibility. The other important development is found in recent compatibilist accounts of rational self-control or reason responsiveness. Strictly speaking, these two lines of thought have developed independent (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   33 citations  
  11. (1 other version)Nudges and other moral technologies in the context of power: Assigning and accepting responsibility.Mark Alfano & Philip Robichaud - 2018 - In Boonin David, Handbook of Philosophy and Public Policy. Palgrave.
    Strawson argues that we should understand moral responsibility in terms of our practices of holding responsible and taking responsibility. The former covers what is commonly referred to as backward-looking responsibility , while the latter covers what is commonly referred to as forward-looking responsibility . We consider new technologies and interventions that facilitate assignment of responsibility. Assigning responsibility is best understood as the second- or third-personal analogue of taking responsibility. It establishes forward-looking responsibility. But unlike taking responsibility, it establishes (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  12. Moral Responsibility and the Moral Community: Another Reply to Zimmerman.Benjamin De Mesel - 2018 - The Journal of Ethics 22 (1):77-92.
    Michael Zimmerman has recently argued against the twofold Strawsonian claim that there can be no moral responsibility without a moral community and that, as a result, moral responsibility is essentially interpersonal. I offered a number of objections to Zimmerman’s view, to which Zimmerman responded. In this article, I respond to Zimmerman’s responses to my criticisms.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  13. Responsibility and the Problem of So-Called Marginal Agents.Larisa Svirsky - 2020 - Journal of the American Philosophical Association 6 (2):246-263.
    Philosophical views of responsibility often identify responsible agency with capacities like rationality and self-control. Yet in ordinary life, we frequently hold individuals responsible who are deficient in these capacities, such as children or people with mental illness. The existing literature that addresses these cases has suggested that we merely pretend to hold these agents responsible, or that they are responsible to a diminished degree. In this paper, I demonstrate that neither of these approaches is satisfactory, and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  14. Doxastic responsibility, guidance control, and ownership of belief.Robert Carry Osborne - 2021 - Episteme 18 (1):82-98.
    ABSTRACTThe contemporary debate over responsibility for belief is divided over the issue of whether such responsibility requires doxastic control, and whether this control must be voluntary in nature. It has recently become popular to hold that responsibility for belief does not require voluntary doxastic control, or perhaps even any form of doxastic ‘control’ at all. However, Miriam McCormick has recently argued that doxastic responsibility does in fact require quasi-voluntary doxastic control: “guidance control,” a complex, compatibilist form of control. In this (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  15. Responsibility for forgetting.Samuel Murray, Elise D. Murray, Gregory Stewart, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong & Felipe De Brigard - 2019 - Philosophical Studies 176 (5):1177-1201.
    In this paper, we focus on whether and to what extent we judge that people are responsible for the consequences of their forgetfulness. We ran a series of behavioral studies to measure judgments of responsibility for the consequences of forgetfulness. Our results show that we are disposed to hold others responsible for some of their forgetfulness. The level of stress that the forgetful agent is under modulates judgments of responsibility, though the level of care that the agent exhibits (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  16. Responsible Brains: Neuroscience, Law, and Human Culpability.William Hirstein, Katrina L. Sifferd & Tyler K. Fagan - 2018 - New York, NY, USA: MIT Press. Edited by Katrina Sifferd & Tyler Fagan.
    [This download includes the table of contents and chapter 1.] -/- When we praise, blame, punish, or reward people for their actions, we are holding them responsible for what they have done. Common sense tells us that what makes human beings responsible has to do with their minds and, in particular, the relationship between their minds and their actions. Yet the empirical connection is not necessarily obvious. The “guilty mind” is a core concept of criminal law, but (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  17. Responsibility, Naturalism and ‘the Morality System'.Paul Russell - 2013 - In David Shoemaker, Oxford Studies in Agency and Responsibility, Volume 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press UK. pp. 184-204.
    In "Freedom and Resentment" P.F. Strawson, famously, advances a strong form of naturalism that aims to discredit kcepticism about moral responsibility by way of approaching these issues through an account of our reactive attitudes. However, even those who follow Strawson's general strategy on this subject accept that his strong naturalist program needs to be substantially modified, if not rejected. One of the most influential and important efforts to revise and reconstruct the Strawsonian program along these lines has been provided by (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  18. Consequentializing Moral Responsibility.Friderik Klampfer - 2014 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy (40):121-150.
    In the paper, I try to cast some doubt on traditional attempts to define, or explicate, moral responsibility in terms of deserved praise and blame. Desert-based accounts of moral responsibility, though no doubt more faithful to our ordinary notion of moral responsibility, tend to run into trouble in the face of challenges posed by a deterministic picture of the world on the one hand and the impact of moral luck on human action on the other. Besides, grounding responsibility in desert (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  19. Responsibility amid the social determinants of health.Ben Schwan - 2020 - Bioethics 35 (1):6-14.
    It is natural to think that there is a tight connection between whether someone is responsible for some outcome and whether it is appropriate to hold her accountable for that outcome. And this natural thought naturally extends to health: if someone is responsible for her health, then, all else being equal, she is accountable for it. Given this, some have thought that responsibility for health has an important role to play in distributing the benefits and burdens of healthcare. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  20. Conceptual responsibility.Trystan S. Goetze - 2021 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 64 (1-2):20-45.
    Conceptual engineering is concerned with the improvement of our concepts. The motivating thought behind many such projects is that some of our concepts are defective. But, if to use a defective concept is to do something wrong, and if to do something wrong one must be in control of what one is doing, there might be no defective concepts, since we typically are not in control of our concept use. To address this problem, this paper turns from appraising the concepts (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  21. Reasons-responsiveness and degrees of responsibility.D. Justin Coates & Philip Swenson - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 165 (2):629-645.
    Ordinarily, we take moral responsibility to come in degrees. Despite this commonplace, theories of moral responsibility have focused on the minimum threshold conditions under which agents are morally responsible. But this cannot account for our practices of holding agents to be more or less responsible. In this paper we remedy this omission. More specifically, we extend an account of reasons-responsiveness due to John Martin Fischer and Mark Ravizza according to which an agent is morally responsible only (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   54 citations  
  22. Response-Dependent Normative Properties and the Epistemic Account of Emotion.Jean Moritz Müller - 2020 - Journal of Value Inquiry 54 (3):355-364.
    It is popular to hold that our primary epistemic access to specific response-dependent properties like the fearsome or admirable (or so-called ‘affective properties’) is constituted by the corresponding emotion. I argue that this view is incompatible with a widely held meta-ethical view, according to which affective properties have deontic force. More specifically, I argue that this view cannot accommodate for the requirement that deontic entities provide guidance. If affective properties are to guide the formation of the corresponding emotion, our primary (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  23. Responsibility and the emotions.Andreas Brekke Carlsson - 2023 - In Maximilian Kiener, The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Responsibility. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
    According to the Strawsonian tradition, a person is responsible for an action just in case it is appropriate to hold them responsible for that action. One important way of holding people responsible for wrongdoing is by experiencing and expressing blaming emotions. This raises the questions of what blaming emotions are and in what sense they can be appropriate. In this chapter I will provide an overview of different answers to both these questions. A common thread in (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  24. To Hold Out Belonging. Identity and Difference in a Heideggerian Critique of Butler and Hegel.Uljana Akca - 2018 - Dissertation, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg
    In contemporary discussions on identity, difference and subjectivity, the thinking of Judith Butler has played a significant role, viewing identity as a problematic question of how the subject is constituted by historical structures of power that deprives it of original ownness and substantiality. As this situation for Butler stems neither from a historical occurrence, nor is clearly ontological, the question of the origin of this problem of identity and power remains. Through the thinking of Martin Heidegger, the present study develops (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  25. Strawson, Moral Responsibility, and the "Order of Explanation": An Intervention.Patrick Todd - 2016 - Ethics 127 (1):208-240.
    P.F. Strawson’s (1962) “Freedom and Resentment” has provoked a wide range of responses, both positive and negative, and an equally wide range of interpretations. In particular, beginning with Gary Watson, some have seen Strawson as suggesting a point about the “order of explanation” concerning moral responsibility: it is not that it is appropriate to hold agents responsible because they are morally responsible, rather, it is ... well, something else. Such claims are often developed in different ways, but one (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   28 citations  
  26. The Source of Responsibility.Randolph Clarke - 2023 - Ethics 133 (2):163–188.
    Although we are morally responsible for things of various kinds, what we bear direct responsibility for are certain exercises of our agency (and perhaps some omissions of these). Theorists disagree about what kind of agency is in this respect the source of our responsibility. Some hold that it is agency the exercises of which are actions. Others say that it is agency exercised in forming reasons-responsive attitudes on the basis of our take on reasons (or value). With attention to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  27. Responsibility and the limits of patient choice.Benjamin Davies - 2020 - Bioethics 34 (5):459-466.
    Patients are generally assumed to have the right to choices about treatment, including the right to refuse treatment, which is constrained by considerations of cost‐effectiveness. Independently, many people support the idea that patients who are responsible for their ill health should incur penalties that non‐responsible patients do not face. Surprisingly, these two areas have not received much joint attention. This paper considers whether restricting the scope of responsibility to pre‐treatment decisions can be justified, or whether a demand to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  28. Response to Wunder: objective probability, non-contingent theism, and the EAAN.Perry Hendricks - 2018 - Religious Studies:1-5.
    This paper is a response to Tyler Wunder’s ‘The modality of theism and probabilistic natural theology: a tension in Alvin Plantinga's philosophy’ (this journal). In his article, Wunder argues that if the proponent of the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN) holds theism to be non-contingent and frames the argument in terms of objective probability, that the EAAN is either unsound or theism is necessarily false. I argue that a modest revision of the EAAN renders Wunder’s objection irrelevant, and that this (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  29. Moral responsibility for banal evil.Paul Formosa - 2006 - Journal of Social Philosophy 37 (4):501–520.
    It has often been argued that Hannah Arendt ‘let off’ Eichmann through her concept of the banality of evil. In this paper I argue, through revisiting and modifying the concept of the banality of evil, that we can reject such criticism. That is, by judging that a perpetrator, like Eichmann, commits evil banally in no way undermines the grounds for holding them to be responsible for their actions, but it does help us to understand why such perpetrators act (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  30. Moral Responsibility and Mental Illness: a Call for Nuance.Matt King & Joshua May - 2018 - Neuroethics 11 (1):11-22.
    Does having a mental disorder, in general, affect whether someone is morally responsible for an action? Many people seem to think so, holding that mental disorders nearly always mitigate responsibility. Against this Naïve view, we argue for a Nuanced account. The problem is not just that different theories of responsibility yield different verdicts about particular cases. Even when all reasonable theories agree about what's relevant to responsibility, the ways mental illness can affect behavior are so varied that a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   18 citations  
  31. Delusional Evidence-Responsiveness.Carolina Flores - 2021 - Synthese 199 (3-4):6299-6330.
    Delusions are deeply evidence-resistant. Patients with delusions are unmoved by evidence that is in direct conflict with the delusion, often responding to such evidence by offering obvious, and strange, confabulations. As a consequence, the standard view is that delusions are not evidence-responsive. This claim has been used as a key argumentative wedge in debates on the nature of delusions. Some have taken delusions to be beliefs and argued that this implies that belief is not constitutively evidence-responsive. Others hold fixed the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  32. Holding Large Language Models to Account.Ryan Miller - 2023 - In Berndt Müller, Proceedings of the AISB Convention. Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of Behaviour. pp. 7-14.
    If Large Language Models can make real scientific contributions, then they can genuinely use language, be systematically wrong, and be held responsible for their errors. AI models which can make scientific contributions thereby meet the criteria for scientific authorship.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  33. Shared Epistemic Responsibility.Boyd Millar - 2021 - Episteme 18 (4):493-506.
    It is widely acknowledged that individual moral obligations and responsibility entail shared (or joint) moral obligations and responsibility. However, whether individual epistemic obligations and responsibility entail shared epistemic obligations and responsibility is rarely discussed. Instead, most discussions of doxastic responsibility focus on individuals considered in isolation. In contrast to this standard approach, I maintain that focusing exclusively on individuals in isolation leads to a profoundly incomplete picture of what we're epistemically obligated to do and when we deserve epistemic blame. First, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  34. Collective Responsibility for Oppression: Making Sense of State Apologies and Other Practices.Victor Guerra - 2023 - Dissertation, University of California, Riverside
    Collective apologies on behalf of governments to historically mistreated minorities have become more common. It is unclear, however, how we should respond to these apologies and other practices that invoke collective responsibility for oppression (chapter 1). I review the current literature on collective responsibility to better understand the obstacles facing an account of collective responsibility for oppression (chapter 2). I then argue that we can make sense of these practices by holding powerful organized collectives (chapter 3) and privileged disorganized (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  35. Responsibility, Authority, and the Community of Moral Agents in Domestic and International Criminal Law.Ryan Long - 2014 - International Criminal Law Review 14 (4-5):836 – 854.
    Antony Duff argues that the criminal law’s characteristic function is to hold people responsible. It only has the authority to do this when the person who is called to account, and those who call her to account, share some prior relationship. In systems of domestic criminal law, this relationship is co-citizenship. The polity is the relevant community. In international criminal law, the relevant community is simply the moral community of humanity. I am sympathetic to his community-based analysis, but argue (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  36.  46
    The Responsibility of Freedom of Speech and the Role of Media in Propagating Correct Knowledge.Angelito Malicse - manuscript
    The Responsibility of Freedom of Speech and the Role of Media in Propagating Correct Knowledge -/- In modern societies, freedom of speech is often heralded as a fundamental right, allowing individuals to express their thoughts and opinions freely. However, the concept of absolute freedom of speech is not without its flaws. When viewed through the lens of natural laws, including the universal law of balance, the unchecked exercise of speech can lead to societal imbalances. It is essential to recognize that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  37. Ordinary wrongdoing and responsibility worth wanting.Maureen Sie - 2005 - European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 1 (2):67-82.
    In this paper it is argued that we can have defensible attributions of responsibility without first answering the question whether determinism and free will are compatible. The key to such a defense is a focus on the fact that most actions for which we hold one another responsible are quite ordinary—trespassing traffic regulations, tardiness, or breaking a promise. As we will show, unlike actions that problematize our moral competence — e.g. akratic and ‘moral monster’- like ones—ordinary ‘wrong’ actions often (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  38. Responsibility to Reflect: Reflection as Epistemic Responsibility in Democracy.Maddox Larson - 2025 - The Philosophy, Politics, and Economics Review 4:5-14.
    In this article, I argue that responsible knowers are responsive to critical feedback that their reasons for believing in a given proposition or using certain principles of reasoning are inadequate. The project of democracy expects that agents can provide reasons for their beliefs during testimonial exchange. Voters provide reasons to representatives. Representatives provide reasons to voters. Voters provide reasons to each other. And representatives provide reasons to each other. This means that when voters or representatives cannot provide reasons, democratic (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  39. (1 other version)Responsibility and False Beliefs.Peter Vallentyne - 2011 - In Carl Knight & Zofia Stemploska, Justice and Responsibility. Oxford University Press.
    An individual is agent-responsible for an outcome just in case it flows from her autonomous agency in the right kind of way. The topic of agent-responsibility is important because most people believe that agents should be held morally accountable (e.g., liable to punishment or having an obligation to compensate victims) for outcomes for which they are agent-responsible and because many other people (e.g., brute luck egalitarians) hold that agents should not be held accountable for outcomes for which they (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  40. Metaphysics for Responsibility to Nature.Bo R. Meinertsen - 2018 - Journal of Value Inquiry 52 (2):187-197.
    On the notion of responsibility employed by John Passmore in his classic Man’s Responsibility for Nature, the relationship of responsibility can only hold between persons (human beings, subjects), or groups and communities of them, and other persons. And in this relationship the persons that are responsible 'to' other persons are responsible 'for' how their actions affect these other persons, not to the direct object of these actions (in this case: nature). If this is correct, we cannot be (...) to nature without conceiving of it as a ‘pseudo-person’, as Passmore calls it. However, non-anthropocentric environmental ethics requires such a moral relationship. The question is, therefore, how this can be allowed in a metaphysically acceptable way. To answer this I first provide an account of what it means to stand in the relation of being ‘responsible to’. Next, I describe two major paradigmatic examples of the metaphysics of nature that perfectly match the thesis that we can, and should, be responsible to nature (the Spinoza-inspired view and the Gaia hypothesis). Unfortunately, they have to be rejected for common sense or naturalist reasons. Finally, I therefore defend a 'fictionalist' view of nature (as person-like) that allows for this relationship. (shrink)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  41. Possibility and conceivability: A response-dependent account of their connections.Peter Menzies - 1998 - In Roberto Casati, European Review of Philosophy: Volume 3: Response-Dependence. Stanford: CSLI Publications. pp. 255--277.
    In the history of modern philosophy systematic connections were assumed to hold between the modal concepts of logical possibility and necessity and the concept of conceivability. However, in the eyes of many contemporary philosophers, insuperable objections face any attempt to analyze the modal concepts in terms of conceivability. It is important to keep in mind that a philosophical explanation of modality does not have to take the form of a reductive analysis. In this paper I attempt to provide a response-dependent (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   49 citations  
  42. Moral Responsibility and Subverting Causes.Andy Taylor - 2010 - Dissertation, University of Reading
    I argue against two of the most influential contemporary theories of moral responsibility: those of Harry Frankfurt and John Martin Fischer. Both propose conditions which are supposed to be sufficient for direct moral responsibility for actions. (By the term direct moral responsibility, I mean moral responsibility which is not traced from an earlier action.) Frankfurt proposes a condition of 'identification'; Fischer, writing with Mark Ravizza, proposes conditions for 'guidance control'. I argue, using counterexamples, that neither is sufficient for direct moral (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  43. Are Individualist Accounts of Collective Responsibility Morally Deficient?Andras Szigeti - 2014 - In Anita Konzelmann Ziv & Hans Bernhard Schmid, Institutions, Emotions, and Group Agents: Contributions to Social Ontology. Dordrecht: Imprint: Springer. pp. 329-342.
    Individualists hold that moral responsibility can be ascribed to single human beings only. An important collectivist objection is that individualism is morally deficient because it leaves a normative residue. Without attributing responsibility to collectives there remains a “deficit in the accounting books” (Pettit). This collectivist strategy often uses judgment aggregation paradoxes to show that the collective can be responsible when no individual is. I argue that we do not need collectivism to handle such cases because the individualist analysis leaves (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  44. (1 other version)Word vector embeddings hold social ontological relations capable of reflecting meaningful fairness assessments.Ahmed Izzidien - 2021 - AI and Society (March 2021):1-20.
    Programming artificial intelligence to make fairness assessments of texts through top-down rules, bottom-up training, or hybrid approaches, has presented the challenge of defining cross-cultural fairness. In this paper a simple method is presented which uses vectors to discover if a verb is unfair or fair. It uses already existing relational social ontologies inherent in Word Embeddings and thus requires no training. The plausibility of the approach rests on two premises. That individuals consider fair acts those that they would be willing (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  45. Responsibility and School Choice in Education.Ben Colburn - 2012 - Journal of Philosophy of Education 46 (2):207-222.
    Consider the following argument for school choice, based on an appeal to the virtues of the market: allowing parents some measure of choice over their particular children's education ultimately serves the interests of all children, because creating a market mechanism in state education will produce improvements through the same pressures that lead to greater efficiency and quality when markets are deployed in more familiar contexts. The argument fails, because it is committed to a principle of equal concern, which implies that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  46. A Response to the Problem of Evil in Zoroastrian Theology.Saeed Anvari - 2013 - Sophia Perennis 23:35-56.
    The problem of evil is a well-known subject in philosophy, especially in philosophy of religion. In fact many thinkers hold that the problem of evil is the most potent rational objection to the theistic belief and has been called the rock of atheism and are being introduced as a recently emerging notion. This paper shows that this problem was proposed and discussed many years ago by Zoroastrian scholars. This paper also studies the solutions proposed by those scholars; And with the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  47. Moral Responsibility in the Age of Free Will Skepticism: A Defence of Frankfurtian-Compatibilism.Owen Jeffrey Crocker - 2022 - Compos Mentis: Undergraduate Journal of Cognition and Neuroethics 10 (1):1-19.
    Free will skepticism is radical in its core claim that free will is illusory. Criminal law, however, appears to presuppose that persons are free and hence, morally responsible for their actions. So, if free will skepticism is true, our current practices that hold people to account for their wrongs appears unjustified–even immoral. This paper will challenge the free will skeptic’s core claim that free will does not exist and defend current practices of moral responsibility by offering (and defending) a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  48. The Facts and Practices of Moral Responsibility.Benjamin De Mesel & Sybren Heyndels - 2019 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 100 (3):790-811.
    Strawsonians about moral responsibility often claim that our practices of holding morally responsible fix the facts of moral responsibility, rather than the other way round. Many have argued that such ‘reversal’ claims have an unwelcome consequence: If our practices of holding morally responsible fix the facts of moral responsibility, does this not imply, absurdly, that if we held severely mentally ill people responsible, they would be responsible? We provide a new Strawsonian answer to this (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  49. Justifying Defense Against Non-Responsible Threats and Justified Aggressors: the Liability vs. the Rights-Infringement Account.Uwe Steinhoff - 2016 - Philosophia 44 (1):247-265.
    Even among those who find lethal defense against non-responsible threats, innocent aggressors, or justified aggressors justified even in one to one cases, there is a debate as to what the best explanation of this permissibility is. The contenders in this debate are the liability account, which holds that the non-responsible or justified human targets of the defensive measures are liable to attack, and the justified infringement account, which claims that the targets retain their right not to be attacked (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  50. Discharging the moral responsibility for collective unjust enrichment in the global economy.Fausto Corvino & Alberto Pirni - 2021 - Theoria: Revista de Teoría, Historia y Fundamentos de la Ciencia 36 (1):139-158.
    In this article we wonder how a person can discharge the political responsibility for supporting and benefiting from unjust social structures. Firstly, we introduce the concept of structural injustice and defend it against three possible objections: ‘explanatory nationalism’, a diachronic interpretation of the benefits of industry-led growth, being part of a social structure does not automatically mean being responsible for its negative consequences. Then, we hold that both Iris Marion Young’s ‘social connection model’ and Robin Zheng’s ‘role-ideal model’ provide (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
1 — 50 / 986