Advertisement

Erkenntnis

, Volume 84, Issue 1, pp 193–214 | Cite as

Moral Responsibility, Luck, and Compatibilism

  • Taylor W. CyrEmail author
Article
First Online:
  • 108 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper, I defend a version of compatibilism (about determinism and moral responsibility) against luck-related objections. After introducing the types of luck that some take to be problematic for moral responsibility, I consider and respond to two recent attempts to show that compatibilism faces the same problem of luck that libertarianism faces—present (or cross-world) luck. I then consider a different type of luck—constitutive luck—and provide a new solution to this problem. One upshot of the present discussion is a reason to prefer a history-sensitive compatibilist account over a purely nonhistorical structuralist account.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to John Fischer and Al Mele for several rounds of comments on and conversations about this paper. Thanks also to Gabriel de Marco, Matt Flummer, Mirja Pérez de Calleja, Jordan Wolf, and the members of the Agency Workshop and at the University of California, Riverside, Zac Bachman, Dave Beglin, Patrick London, Meredith McFadden, Jonah Nagashima, and Michael Nelson, for helpful thoughts on earlier drafts of this paper. Thanks also to audiences at the 2013 Pacific APA, the 2012 Florida Philosophical Association meeting, the 2012 Alabama Philosophical Society meeting, and the Graduate Student Writing Workshop at Florida State University for comments on an earlier version of this paper. Finally, special thanks also to three anonymous reviewers for their thorough and very helpful comments on the paper. I was lucky (but not problematically so) to have so much help!

References

  1. Almeida, M., & Bernstein, M. (2003). Lucky libertarianism. Philosophical Studies, 113, 93–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Coates, J., & Swenson, P. (2013). Reasons-responsiveness and degrees of responsibility. Philosophical Studies, 165, 629–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Coffman, E. J. (2007). Thinking about luck. Synthese, 158(3), 385–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cyr, T. (Manuscript A). Consolidating the problems of luck and enhanced control.Google Scholar
  5. Cyr, T. (Manuscript B). Manipulation and constitutive luck.Google Scholar
  6. Cyr, T. (Manuscript C). Taking Hobart seriously.Google Scholar
  7. Driver, J. (2013). Luck and fortune in moral evaluation. In M. Blaauw (Ed.), Contrastivism in philosophy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Fischer, J. M. (2006). My way: Essays on moral responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Fischer, J. M. (2012). Deep control: Essays on free will and value. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fischer, J. M. (2014). Toward a solution to the luck problem. In D. Palmer (Ed.), Libertarian free will: Contemporary debates. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Fischer, J. M., & Ravizza, M. (1998). Responsibility and control: A theory of moral responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frankfurt, H. (1971). Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. Journal of Philosophy, 68(1), 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frankfurt, H. (1988). The importance of what we care about. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haji, I. (1999). Indeterminism and Frankfurt-type examples. Philosophical Explorations, 2, 42–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hartman, R. (2016). Against luck-free moral responsibility. Philosophical Studies, 173, 2845–2865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hartman, R. (2017). In defense of moral luck: Why luck often affects praiseworthiness and blameworthiness. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hume, D. (2000). A treatise of human nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kane, R. (1996). The significance of free will. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kane, R. (1999). Responsibility, luck, and chance: Reflections on free will and indeterminism. Journal of Philosophy, 96(5), 217–240.Google Scholar
  20. Levy, N. (2009). Luck and history-sensitive compatibilism. Philosophical Quarterly, 59(235), 237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Levy, N. (2011). Hard luck: How luck undermines free will and moral responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McKenna, M. (2004). Responsibility and globally manipulated agents. Philosophical Topics, 32(1), 169–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McKenna, M. (2012). Moral responsibility, manipulation arguments, and history: Assessing the resilience of non nonhistorical compatibilism. Journal of Ethics, 16(2), 145–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mele, A. (1995). Autonomous agents. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Mele, A. (2006). Free will and luck. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mele, A. (2008). Manipulation, compatibilism, and moral responsibility. Journal of Ethics, 12(3), 263–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mele, A. (2009). Moral responsibility and history revisited. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 12(5), 463–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mele, A. (2010). Moral responsibility for actions: Epistemic and freedom conditions. Philosophical Explorations, 13(2), 101–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mele, A. (2013a). Manipulation, moral responsibility, and bullet biting. Journal of Ethics, 17(3), 167–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mele, A. (2013b). Moral responsibility and the continuation problem. Philosophical Studies, 162(2), 237–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mele, A. (2013c). Moral responsibility, manipulation, and minutelings. Journal of Ethics, 17(3), 153–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nagel, T. (1979). Mortal questions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Nelkin, D. (2016). Difficulty and degrees of moral praiseworthiness and blameworthiness. Nous, 50(2), 356–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pérez de Calleja, M. (2014). Cross-world luck at the time of decision is a problem for compatibilists as well. Philosophical Explorations, 17(2), 112–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pritchard, D. (2005). Epistemic luck. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smilansky, S. (2000). Free will and illusion. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  37. Strawson, G. (1986). Free will and belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Tognazzini, N. (2011). Owning up to luck. Social Theory and Practice, 37(1), 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. van Inwagen, P. (1983). An essay on free will. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  40. van Inwagen, P. (2000). Free will remains a mystery. Philosophical Perspectives, 14, 1–19.Google Scholar
  41. Vargas, M. (2012). Why the luck problem isn’t. Philosophical Issues, 22, 419–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Waller, B. (2011). Against moral responsibility. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Watson, G. (2004). Agency and answerability: Selected essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of California, RiversideRiversideUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options