Misophonia is a disorder of tolerance to specific sounds (i.e. trigger sounds), such as chewing, throat clearing or breathing sounds, produced by humans, which can trigger intense emotional reactions (anger, disgust). This relatively prevalent disorder can cause a reduction in the quality of life. The causes of misophonia are still unclear. In this article, we develop a “social” hypothesis based on the work of Norbert Elias. Misophonia would be an exaggerated reaction to behaviours (of others) that have (...) been subject to rigorous social conditioning, which are supposed to be strictly regulated and repressed. The social rules imposed by society, accompanying the long process of pacification and increasing interdependence between individuals over the centuries, would be at the origin of this conditioning. The function of this conditioning, achieved mainly through shame and disgust, would be to preserve social cohesion, through the strict training of behaviour. It is indeed imperative to control oneself, to act in a thoughtful and balanced way, to spare others by taking into account their expectations, in short to behave in a “courteous” way. Imposed and less spontaneous behaviour creates a sense of modesty and distance between individuals. The obligation to strictly regulate behaviour and affect in public contributes to the creation of an interiority, an "inner self". The feeling of intrusion by others is a collateral effect of this process of distancing and individualisation. The rigorous integration of the social rule by the misophonic subject may account for the fact that any violation of the rule is considered unacceptable. In order to put an end to the unpleasant situation, i.e. to the intrusion generated by the “encroachment” of others, the subject has no other choice but to flee or to attack the author of the sound. (shrink)

This paper advances a new agentially undemanding account of the conditions of attributability, the Minimal Approval account, and argues that it has a number of advantages over traditional Deep Self theories, including the way in which it handles agents with conditions like addiction, Tourette syndrome, and misophonia. It is argued that in order for an agent to be attributionally responsible, the mental process that leads to her action must dispose her to be such that she would, upon reflec-tion, approve (...) to some minimal degree of being moved to action by the motive on which she in fact acts. (shrink)

Orthodoxy holds that the difference between weakness of will and compulsion is a matter of the resistibility of an agent's effective motivation, which makes control-based views of agency especially well equipped to distinguish blameworthy weak-willed acts from non-blameworthy compulsive acts. I defend an alternative view that the difference between weakness and compulsion instead lies in the fact that agents would upon reflection give some conative weight to acting on their weak-willed desires for some aim other than to extinguish them, but (...) not to their compulsive desires. This view allows identificationist theorists of moral responsibility to explain why weak-willed actions, but not compulsive actions, are attributable to agents such that they can, in theory, be praised or blamed for them. After motivating and presenting the view in detail, I show how it has unique resources for explaining the ethics of managing one's compulsions. (shrink)

I argue in favor of the Minimal Approval account, an original account of an agent’s moral responsibility for her actions, understood as the conditions that must be met so that an agent’s actions speak for her such that she can appropriately be blamed on their basis. My account shares a general theoretical orientation with Deep Self views, but diverges in several respects. I argue that Deep Self views tend to seriously over-generate exemptions, such that agents are exempt from responsibility even (...) from ordinary weak-willed actions. Accordingly, much of my focus is on giving a more nuanced, and in certain senses narrower, explanation of genuine exemption cases. While I address the advantages the Minimal Approval account has over competing accounts throughout these chapters, the account also aims to provide an empirically informed response to a certain sort of skeptical worry about how it could be the case that anyone is ever responsible for what they do at all. One commonplace thought is that when agents’ behaviors are due to compulsion their “brains make them do it.” But, in a literal sense, it might seem that our brains make all of us do everything that we do. In this dissertation I head off this worry by directly addressing both what the difference is, and what it should mean for our practices. (shrink)