Determinism, compatibilism, and basic desert: a reply to Gregg Caruso

2021 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 144-148
Author(s):  
Alec Walen
Keyword(s):  
2008 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Will Sanders ◽  
Sarah Holcombe

In light of some basic desert demography, this paper examines governance patterns for small desert settlements. It traces policy histories which led to the emergence of highly localised, single settlement governance arrangements during the 1970s and ’80s. It also identifies the many pushes since within the Northern Territory local government system for more regional, multi-settlement governance structures. The paper goes on to examine the history of one such regional, multi-settlement arrangement in central Australia, the Anmatjere Community Government Council established in 1993. The paper details our work with this Council over the last 4 years on ‘issues of importance or concern’ to them. The paper aims to learn from the ACGC experience in order to inform the more radical restructuring of Northern Territory local government currently underway towards larger multi-settlement regionalism. It concludes with four specific lessons, the most important of which is that regionalism must build on single settlement localism.


2013 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 226-239
Author(s):  
Daniel Haas
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
pp. 229-258
Author(s):  
Pamela Hieronymi

One might be puzzled about what philosophers have in mind when they talk about ‘basic desert,’ ‘true moral responsibility,’ or the ‘condemnatory force’ of moral criticism. In particular, one might be puzzled by its presumed relation to some strong requirement of freedom. The presumption is that, if we are not ‘free’ in some very strong sense, then we are not truly morally responsible and so do not deserve condemnation. But, what is this condemnation and why does it require a strong for of freedom? This chapter responds to this question and offers a new understanding of the presumed relation between a strong form of freedom and a status that might be called ‘condemnation’ or a kind of desert that might be called ‘basic.’


2021 ◽  
pp. 27-53
Author(s):  
Derk Pereboom

Chapter 2 sets out a conception of blame without the notion of deserved pain or harm. To blame is instead to take on a non-retributive stance of moral protest. The reasons for taking on this stance are forward looking: moral formation or reconciliation in a relationship that has been impaired as a result of the wrongdoing, protection from wrongdoing, and restoration of the integrity of its victims. Regret, a painful response to one’s own wrongdoing which by contrast with guilt (by stipulation) does not involve the supposition that the pain it involves is basically deserved, may appropriately accompany self-blame. The pain of guilt, an attitude distinct from regret, conceptually involves basic desert since it involves the supposition that it would be prima facie permissible for those who are suitably situated to intentionally impose it on a wrongdoer for a non-instrumental reason. The pain of regret does not involve this supposition.


2013 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 212-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadine Elzein

2013 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 165-177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zac Cogley
Keyword(s):  

2013 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-211
Author(s):  
Evan Tiffany
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document