David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Studies 99 (2):229-268 (2000)
Part 1 reviews the general question of when elimination of an entity orproperty is warranted, as opposed to revision of our view of it. Theconnections of this issue with the distinction between context-drivenand theory-driven accounts of reference and essence are probed.Context-driven accounts tend to be less hospitable to eliminativism thantheory-driven accounts, but this tendency should not be overstated.However, since both types of account give essences explanatory depth,eliminativist claims associated with supposed impossible essences areproblematic on both types of account.Part 2 applies these considerations to responsibility in particular. Theimpossibility of regressive choice or control is explained. It is arguedthat this impossibility does not support the claim that no one is everresponsible on either context-driven or theory-driven accounts of`responsibility''
|Keywords||Eliminativism Essence Metaphysics Reference Responsibility|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Randolph Clarke (2005). On an Argument for the Impossibility of Moral Responsibility. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 29 (1):13-24.
Michael Anthony Istvan (2011). Concerning the Resilience of Galen Strawson's Basic Argument. Philosophical Studies 155 (3):399-420.
Similar books and articles
Michael S. Moore (2009). Causation and Responsibility: An Essay in Law, Morals, and Metaphysics. OUP Oxford.
Josefa Toribio (2002). Semantic Responsibility. Philosophical Explorations 1 (1):39-58.
Michael Davis (2012). “Ain't No One Here But Us Social Forces”: Constructing the Professional Responsibility of Engineers. [REVIEW] Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (1):13-34.
Susan Wolf (1987). Sanity and the Metaphysics of Responsibility. In Ferdinand David Schoeman (ed.), Responsibility, Character, and the Emotions: New Essays in Moral Psychology. Cambridge University Press 46-62.
Deborah G. Johnson & Thomas M. Powers (2005). Computer Systems and Responsibility: A Normative Look at Technological Complexity. Ethics and Information Technology 7 (2):99-107.
Angela M. Smith (2008). Control, Responsibility, and Moral Assessment. Philosophical Studies 138 (3):367 - 392.
Carl Knight (2010). Justice and the Grey Box of Responsibility. Theoria 57 (124):86-112.
Linda Radzik (2001). Collective Responsibility and Duties to Respond. Social Theory and Practice 27 (3):455-471.
Maurice K. D. Schouten & Huib L. de Jong (1998). Defusing Eliminative Materialism: Reference and Revision. Philosophical Psychology 11 (4):489-509.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads88 ( #49,210 of 1,911,671 )
Recent downloads (6 months)11 ( #55,078 of 1,911,671 )
How can I increase my downloads?