Abstract
AbstractIn his latest book Mechanical Choices, Michael Moore provides an explication and defence of the idea that responsibility comes in degrees. His account takes as its point of departure the view that free action and free will consist in the holding of certain counterfactuals. In this paper, I argue that Moore’s view faces several familiar counterexamples, all of which serve to motivate Harry Frankfurt’s classic insight that whether and to what extent one is responsible for one’s action has more to do with what actually caused that action than with what one could or couldn’t have done instead. I then go on to sketch an alternative approach to degrees of responsibility that takes seriously this insight. I’ll argue that Moore ought to be sympathetic to this approach, inasmuch as it combines two familiar Moorean ideas: the idea that causal contribution comes in degrees, and the idea that acting freely is compatible with, and indeed entails, the fact that one’s action was caused by prior states of affairs.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference35 articles.
1. Beebee, H. and Kaiserman, A. (2020). Causal Contribution in War. Journal of Applied Philosophy 37(3), 364–377.
2. Björnsson, G. (2017). Explaining (Away) the Epistemic Condition on Moral Responsibility. In P. Robichaud and J. W. Wieland (eds.), Responsibility: The Epistemic Condition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3. Choi, S. (2012). Intrinsic Finks and Dispositional/Categorical Distinction. Noûs 46(2), 289–325.
4. Clarke, R. (2008). Intrinsic Finks. Philosophical Quarterly 58(232), 512–518.
5. Coates, D. J. and Swenson, P. (2013). Reasons-Responsiveness and Degrees of Responsibility. Philosophical Studies 165(2), 629–645.