David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ratio 23 (4):433-452 (2010)
Actions for which we are responsible constitute our engagement with the world as rational agents. What is the relationship between such actions and our capacities for rational agency? I take this to be a question about responsibility in a particular use of that term, which I shall call ‘responsibility2’. We are not responsible2 for all our intentional actions (actions under hypnosis, for example), but we can nevertheless be responsible2 for actions we do not adequately control, for negligent actions, and for non-intentional omissions. Appreciating this helps show that familiar principles of responsibility are false: those which delimit responsibility to intentional actions or to actions and outcomes under our control. In the attempt to fashion an alternative principle, cases of negligence prove pivotal. We hold ourselves and others responsible2 for conduct within our respective ‘domains of secure competence’, (i.e. that within which we are confident of doing what we set ourselves to do, barring events which defeat our competence), even when actions within that domain fail. The significance of this practice of holding ourselves and others responsible2 lies in the way it maintains our sense of who we are and of how we are related to the world in which we act.1
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Joseph Raz (2012). Agency and Luck. In Ulrike Heuer & Gerald Lang (eds.), Luck, Value, and Commitment: Themes From the Ethics of Bernard Williams. Oxford University Press, Usa
John Schwenkler (2012). Non-Observational Knowledge of Action. Philosophy Compass 7 (10):731-740.
Zofia Stemplowska (2008). Holding People Responsible for What They Do Not Control. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 7 (4):355-377.
Cara Spencer (2007). Unconscious Vision and the Platitudes of Folk Psychology. Philosophical Psychology 20 (3):309 – 327.
Martin Stokhof & Jan van Eijck (2006). The Gamut of Dynamic Logics. In Dov Gabbay & John Woods (eds.), The Handbook of the History of Logic. Volume 6: Logic and Modalities in the Twentieth Century. Elsevier 499-600.
Rosalind Hursthouse (1991). Arational Actions. Journal of Philosophy 88 (2):57-68.
Rob Vanderbeeken (2006). Can Intentional and Functional Explanations of Actions Coexist? The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 9:143-147.
Randolph Clarke (1994). Ability and Responsibility for Omissions. Philosophical Studies 73 (2-3):195 - 208.
David Kirsh & Paul Maglio (1994). On Distinguishing Epistemic From Pragmatic Action. Cognitive Science 18 (4):513-549.
Rebekah L. H. Rice (2011). What is a Causal Theorist to Do About Omissions? Modern Schoolman 88 (1-2):123-144.
Mark Leon (2011). Reason and Coercion: In Defence of a Rational Control Account of Freedom. Philosophia 39 (4):733-740.
Added to index2010-10-22
Total downloads137 ( #14,463 of 1,725,471 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #167,283 of 1,725,471 )
How can I increase my downloads?