Advertisement

Philosophical Studies

, Volume 175, Issue 2, pp 483–501 | Cite as

Responsibility and the shallow self

  • Samuel Reis-DennisEmail author
Article
  • 369 Downloads

Abstract

Contemporary philosophers of moral responsibility are in widespread agreement that we can only be blamed for actions that express, reflect, or disclose something about us or the quality of our wills. In this paper I reject that thesis and argue that self disclosure is not a necessary condition on moral responsibility and blameworthiness: reactive responses ranging from aretaic appraisals all the way to outbursts of anger and resentment can be morally justified even when the blamed agent’s action expresses or discloses nothing significant about his or her “deep self,” judgments and cares, or the quality of his or her will. I argue that the self-disclosure requirement on responsibility overestimates the extent to which our blaming practices and responsibility judgments are responsive to agents as opposed to actions, and that this mistake has the potential to distort both our reactive responses and our understanding of blamed agents’ characters.

Keywords

Moral responsibility Blame Deep self Self disclosure Resentment 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I have benefited from, and enjoyed, discussing this paper with Susan Wolf, Vida Yao, Thomas Hill, Douglas MacLean, and Ram Neta. I am also grateful for the feedback of an audience at the 2016 Rocky Mountain Ethics Congress, and for the helpful comments. I received there from Daniel Miller. Finally, I am thankful for the careful reading and stylistic wisdom of Pamela Reis.

References

  1. Arpaly, N. (2006). Merit, meaning, and human bondage: An essay on free will. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Arpaly, N., & Schroeder, T. (1999). Praise, blame and the whole self. Philosophical Studies, 93, 161–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Frankfurt, H. (2003). Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. In G. Watson (Ed.), Free will. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Nagel, T. (1979). Moral questions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Scanlon, T. (1998). What we owe to each other. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Scanlon, T. (2008). Moral dimensions. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Shoemaker, D. (2015). Ecumenical attributability. In R. Clarke, M. McKenna, & A. Smith (Eds.), The nature of moral responsibility: New essays. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Smith, A. (1976). The theory of moral sentiments. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  9. Smith, A. (2005). Responsibility for attitudes: Activity and passivity in mental life. Ethics, 115(2), 236–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Smith, A. (2008). Control, responsibility, and moral assessment. Philosophical Studies, 138(3), 367–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Sripada, C. (2016). Self-expression: A deep self theory of moral responsibility. Philosophical Studies, 173(5), 1203–1232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Walsh shoulders blame for devastating loss (2015). Retrieved from Espn.com. Google Scholar
  13. Watson, G. (2003). Free agency. In G. Watson (Ed.), Free will. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Williams, B. (1981). Moral luck. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Wolf, S. (1987). Sanity and the metaphysics of responsibility. In F. Schoeman (Ed.), Responsibility, character, and the emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Zimmerman, M. (1988). An essay on moral responsibility. Totowa: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentUniversity of North Carolina, Chapel HillChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations