Advertisement

Being Identical by Being (Treated as) Responsible

  • Michael Quante
Chapter
Part of the Philosophical Studies Series book series (PSSP, volume 118)

Abstract

This paper addresses external aspects of personal autonomy and the self by discussing the role attributions of responsibility play. It is argued that the concepts of responsibility and personal autonomy are, in a Hegelian expression, concepts of reflection, i.e. concepts that can only be explicated in terms of their mutual connection and whose respective content refers to each other. Central to this thesis is the idea of understanding both responsibility and personal autonomy in an ascriptivist sense. Human agents are held responsible for their actions by others. This social practice of being held responsible plays a constitutive role for the development of the evaluative self-relationship that is characteristic of persons and thus for our understanding ourselves as responsible and as autonomous agents. Following that line of thought, a second aim of the paper is then to show that the difficulty an ascriptivist position usually has with our ability to criticize our practice of ascribing responsibility as well as personal autonomy does not necessarily have to appear. For, there are properties and capacities necessary for personal autonomy that have a descriptive content and which can be put to critical use. Moreover, because our concept of personality (or the self) is also relevant in other contexts than that of ascribing responsibility, conditions within such other contexts can be imported as well, thus allowing ourselves to place our practice of ascribing responsibility in a wider and materially richer evaluative context.

Keywords

Personal Identity Human Person Personal Autonomy Ethical Practice Conceptual Reason 
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. Austin, J.L. 1961. Philosophical papers. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  2. Beauchamp, T.L. 2005. Who deserves autonomy, and whose autonomy deserves respect? In Personal autonomy, ed. J.S. Taylor, 310–329. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 2009. Principles of biomedical ethics, 6th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Birnbacher, D. 1995. Tun und Unterlassen. Stuttgart: Reclam.Google Scholar
  5. Bratman, M. 2007. Structures of agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christman, J., and J. Anderson (eds.). 2005. Autonomy and the challenges to liberalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dworkin, G. 1988. The theory and practice of autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Faden, R.R., and T.L. Beauchamp. 1986. A history and theory of informed consent. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Fischer, J.M. (ed.). 1986. Moral responsibility. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Fischer, J.M. 2006. My way. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Fischer, J.M., and M. Ravizza (eds.). 1993. Perspectives on moral responsibility. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Fischer, J.M., and M. Ravizza. 1998. Responsibility and control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Frankfurt, H.G. 1988. The importance of what we care about. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Henning, T. 2009. Person sein und Geschichten erzählen. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  15. Maydell, B.v., et al. 2006. Enabling social Europe. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McKenna, M., and P. Russell. 2008. Free will and reactive attitudes. Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  17. Parfit, D. 1984. Reasons and persons. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  18. Quante, M. 1999. Precedent autonomy and personal identity. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 9: 365–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Quante, M. 2002. Personales Leben und menschlicher Tod. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  20. Quante, M. 2004. Hegel’s concept of action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Quante, M. 2007a. Person. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Quante, M. 2007b. The social nature of personal identity. Journal of Consciousness Studies 14: 56–76.Google Scholar
  23. Quante, M. 2010a. Hegel’s planning theory of action. In Hegel on action, ed. A. Laitinen and C. Sandis, 212–231. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  24. Quante, M. 2010b. The pure notion of recognition. In The philosophy of recognition: Historical and contemporary perspectives, ed. H.-C. Schmidt am Busch and C.F. Zurn, 89–106. Lanham: Lexington Books/Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  25. Quante, M. 2011. In defence of personal autonomy. Journal of Medical Ethics 37: 597–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Quante, M., and D. Schweikard. 2009. ‘Leading a universal life’: The systematic relevance of Hegel’s social philosophy. History of the Human Sciences 22: 58–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Quante, M., and A. Vieth. 2002. In defence of principlism well understood. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 27: 621–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Taylor, J.S. (ed.). 2005. Personal autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Vieth, A., and M. Quante. 2005. Chimäre Mensch? In Die menschliche Natur, ed. K. Bayertz, 192–218. Mentis: Paderborn.Google Scholar
  30. Vieth, A., and M. Quante. 2010. The structure of perception in particularist ethics. Ethical Perspectives 17: 5–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wallace, R.J. 1998. Responsibility and the moral sentiments. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Wiggins, D. 2001. Sameness and substance renewed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Willaschek, M. 1992. Praktische Vernunft. Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyWestfälische Wilhelms-UniversityMünsterGermany

Personalised recommendations