Advertisement

Blame, Reasons and Capacities

  • Rosemary Lowry
Chapter
Part of the Library of Ethics and Applied Philosophy book series (LOET, volume 27)

Abstract

It is usually agreed that we must recognise that responsibility (in the sense of blameworthiness) comes in degrees if we are to accurately reflect the moral landscape of people’s actions. In this paper I develop this view by constructing a framework which will allow us to determine the degree to which an agent is blameworthy for failing to act. This framework accommodates the close connection between an agent’s blameworthiness and her reasons, which I argue should lead us to see reasons as coming in degrees. The view that reasons come in degrees is justified on the basis of two claims: first, reasons are constrained by what it is possible for the agent to do, and second, it may be possible to some degree for an agent to do something. I conclude the paper by demonstrating how this framework can be used to justify claims about the degree to which an agent has a reason, and the degree to which an agent can be blameworthy in a given case.

Keywords

Actual World Reason Condition Rational Capacity Intrinsic Quality Close World 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Dennett, Daniel. 1984. Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Espinoza, Nicolas, and Martin Peterson. 2011. “Some Versions of the Number Problems Have No Solution.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 13(4):439–51.Google Scholar
  3. Heuer, Ulrike. 2010. “Reasons and Impossibility.” Philosophical Studies 147(2):235–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Honoré, Tony. 1998. “Being Responsible and Being a Victim of Circumstance.” Reprinted in 1999, Responsibility and Fault, 121–42. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Pettit, Philip, and Michael Smith. 2006. “External Reasons.” In McDowell and His Critics, edited by Cynthia Macdonald and Graham Macdonald, 140–68. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Skorupski, John. 2007. “Internal Reasons and the Scope of Blame.” In Bernard Williams, edited by Alan Thomas, 73–103. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Smith, Michael. 2004. “Rational Capacities.” In Ethics and the A Priori: Selected Essays on Moral Psychology and Meta-Ethics, edited by Micheal Smith, 114–35. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Streumer, Bart. 2007. “Reasons and Impossibility.” Philosophical Studies 136:351–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Williams, Bernard. 1989. “Internal Reasons and the Obscurity of Blame.” Reprinted in 1995, Making Sense of Humanity: And Other Philosophical Papers, edited by Bernard Williams, 35–45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations