Abstract
AbstractI respond to the Behavioral and Brain Sciences commentaries on my book, Talking to Our Selves: Reflection, Ignorance, and Agency. I defend and amend both the skeptical challenge to morally responsible agency, that is, the book's impetus, and the anti-skeptical theory I develop to address that challenge. Regarding the skeptical challenge, I argue that it must be taken more seriously than some of my sanguine commentators assert, and consider some ways its impact might be blunted, such as by appeal to individual differences and the practical efficacy of human behavior. Regarding my positive theory, I defend the role of values in morally responsible agency against numerous criticisms, and consider various suggestions for elaborating my social, “collaborativist” account of morally responsible agency. In closing, I comment on the appropriate aspirations for theorizing about moral responsibility and agency.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Behavioral Neuroscience,Physiology,Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology
Reference62 articles.
1. Innate talents: Reality or myth?
2. Responsibility and ignorance of the self: Comments on John Doris' Talking to Our Selves: Reflection, Ignorance, and Agency;Nelkin;Social Theory and Practice,forthcoming
3. Responsibility and Action: Invariants and Diversity in Requests for Objects in British English and Polish Interaction
4. Reflectivism, skepticism, and values;Vargas;Social Theory and Practice,forthcoming-a
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献