scholarly journals Culpable ignorance in a collective setting

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Säde Hormio
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Will ◽  
Organisational Design ◽  
Culpable Ignorance

This paper explores types of organisational ignorance and ways in which organisational practices can affect the knowledge we have about the causes and effects of our actions. I will argue that because knowledge and information are not evenly distributed within an organisation, sometimes organisational design alone can create individual ignorance. I will also show that sometimes the act that creates conditions for culpable ignorance takes place at the collective level. This suggests that quality of will of an agent is not necessary to explain culpable ignorance in an organisational setting.

Criminal Culpability

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gideon Yaffe
Keyword(s):  
Moral Reasons ◽  
Quality Of Will ◽  
Moral Culpability ◽  
Criminal Culpability

This chapter offers and defends a theory of criminal culpability according to which to be criminally culpable for a wrongful act is for the act to manifest faulty dispositions for recognizing, weighing, or responding to the legal reasons to refrain from the act. The chapter clarifies this position by explaining what such dispositions are, what it is for them to be faulty, and the conditions under which they are manifested in an act. Under the position presented here, there is a distinction between criminal culpability and moral culpability corresponding to the distinction between legal and moral reasons to refrain from an act. The chapter also distinguishes the view proposed from both character theories of responsibility and quality of will theories.

Oxford Studies in Agency and Responsibility Volume 6

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Moral Responsibility ◽  
New Orleans ◽  
Moral Philosophy ◽  
Moral Agency ◽  
Self Control ◽  
Moral Testimony ◽  
Quality Of Will ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Standing To Blame

This is the sixth volume of Oxford Studies in Agency and Responsibility. The papers were drawn from the fourth biennial New Orleans Workshop in Agency and Responsibility (NOWAR), held November 2–4, 2017. The essays cover a wide range of topics relevant to agency and responsibility: the threat of neuroscience to free will; the relevance of resentment and guilt to responsibility; how control and self-control pertain to moral agency, oppression, and poverty; responsibility for joint agency; the role and conditions of shame in theories of attributability; how one might take responsibility without blameworthy quality of will; what it means to have standing to blame others; the relevance of moral testimony to moral responsibility; how to build a theory of attributabiity that captures all the relevant cases; and how thinking about blame better enables us to dissolve a dispute in moral philosophy between actualists and possibilists.

Second Thoughts

2019 ◽  
pp. 214-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary Watson
Keyword(s):  
Reactive Attitudes ◽  
Weakness Of Will ◽  
Moral Criticism ◽  
Quality Of Will ◽  
Critical Questions ◽  
The Way

This chapter addresses critical questions about Watson’s distinction between two “faces” of responsibility—responsibility as attributability and responsibility as accountability—addressing the nature of each and what each has to do with responsibility. Along the way, a distinction is elaborated between first-personal and second-personal forms of answerability, the first of which is implicit in attributability and the second of which is a form of accountability. The chapter bemoans the emphasis in much recent writing on reactive attitudes, narrowly construed; this ignores many of the responses that constitute holding others responsible. It also rejects the prevalent idea that moral criticism is basically a response to agents’ quality of will. This leaves out culpable and other forms of objectionable inadvertence. Finally, the chapter explains the motivation behind Watson’s earlier position on weakness of will, and why he now regards that position as misguided.

The Reactive Attitudes and Responsibility

2021 ◽  
pp. 26-50
Author(s):  
David O. Brink
Keyword(s):  
Reactive Attitudes ◽  
Quality Of Will

The chapter introduces Strawson’s link between the reactive attitudes and responsibility. It defends a realist understanding of that link, in which it is responsibility that grounds the reactive attitudes. It explains how responsibility and excuse are inversely related and how our practices of excuse vindicate a compatibilist conception of responsibility. It concludes by exploring quality of will and distinguishing accountability from attributability and answerability.

scholarly journals Shoemaker on Sentiments and Quality of Will

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 573-584
Author(s):  
Christopher Bennett
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Will

scholarly journals Responsibility: The Epistemic Condition

2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Moral Responsibility ◽  
Basic Structure ◽  
High Time ◽  
Epistemic Condition ◽  
Quality Of Will ◽  
Independent Condition ◽  
Moral Ignorance ◽  
Full Volume

Philosophers have long agreed that moral responsibility might not only have a freedom condition, but also an epistemic condition. Moral responsibility and knowledge interact, but the question is exactly how. Ignorance might constitute an excuse, but the question is exactly when. Surprisingly enough, the epistemic condition has only recently attracted the attention of scholars, and it is high time for a full volume on the topic. The chapters in this volume address the following central questions. Does the epistemic condition require akrasia? Why does blameless ignorance excuse? Does moral ignorance sustained by one’s culture excuse? Does the epistemic condition involve knowledge of the wrongness or wrongmaking features of one’s action? Is the epistemic condition an independent condition, or is it derivative from one’s quality of will or intentions? Is the epistemic condition sensitive to degrees of difficulty? Are there different kinds of moral responsibility and thus multiple epistemic conditions? Is the epistemic condition revisionary? What is the basic structure of the epistemic condition?

Introduction to OSAR 6

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
David Shoemaker
Keyword(s):  
Moral Responsibility ◽  
New Orleans ◽  
Moral Agency ◽  
Moral Emotions ◽  
Self Control ◽  
Moral Testimony ◽  
Quality Of Will ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Standing To Blame

This introduction to the sixth volume of Oxford Studies in Agency and Responsibility briefly discusses each of the new essays being published. They were drawn from the fourth biennial New Orleans Workshop in Agency and Responsibility (NOWAR), held November 2–4, 2017. The essays cover a wide range of topics relevant to agency and responsibility: the threat of neuroscience to free will; the relevance of moral emotions like shame, resentment, and guilt to responsibility; how control and self-control pertain to moral agency, oppression, and poverty; responsibility for joint agency; how one might take responsibility without blameworthy quality of will; what it means to have standing to blame others; the relevance of moral testimony to moral responsibility; and how thinking about blame better enables us to dissolve a dispute in moral philosophy between actualists and possibilists.

scholarly journals Moral Responsibility and Quality of Will

2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Moral Responsibility ◽  
Quality Of Will ◽  
Mental Characteristics

It is frequently claimed that moral responsibility is a function of quality of will. This chapter investigates whether and, if so, how this is the case. First, it is noted that the term “quality of will” may be too narrow to fully capture the kinds of mental characteristics, both epistemic and non-epistemic, that are relevant to a person’s being morally responsible for something. Then the questions are raised just which kinds of mental characteristics are relevant and how they should be said to be relevant. In response to these questions, an account is given of the concepts of praise and blame and of the worthiness of praise and blame, on the basis of which it is suggested that (a) there are different kinds of praise and blame, (b) there are correspondingly different kinds of praiseworthiness and blameworthiness, and (c) there are accordingly different kinds of moral responsibility.

Introduction

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael E. Bratman
Keyword(s):  
Reflective Equilibrium ◽  
Reactive Attitudes ◽  
Central Idea ◽  
Quality Of Will ◽  
Planning Agency ◽  
Planning Framework ◽  
Peter Strawson ◽  
Over Time

This introduction explains the background for present concerns with a deeper understanding and defense of basic norms of plan rationality, both synchronic and diachronic. It gives an overview of the defense adumbrated in these essays: one that involves but goes beyond appeal to pragmatic benefits of general forms of practical thinking involved in our planning agency. A central idea is that these planning norms track conditions of a planning agent’s self-governance, both synchronic and diachronic. The reflective significance of this tracking thesis depends on an end of one’s self-governance over time. While this end is not essential to agency, it is a rationally self-sustaining keystone of a stable reflective equilibrium involving basic planning norms. It is thereby in a position to play a role in our planning framework that is analogous to the role of concern with quality of will in the framework of reactive attitudes, as understood by Peter Strawson.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document