A classic, though basically neglected question about motivation arises when we attempt to account for blame’s nature—namely, does the recognition central to blame need help from an independent desire in order to motivate the blame-characteristic dispositions that arise in the blamer? Those who have attended to the question think the answer is yes. Hence, they adopt what I call a Humean Construal of blame on which blame is (a) a judgment that an individual S is blameworthy and (b) an independent (...) desire about S not doing as they did or being as they are. This paper rejects arguments for the Humean Construal, illustrates deep failings of that view, and uses these considerations to support anti-Humean accounts of blame in particular and moral motivation more broadly. (shrink)

My dissertation develops a novel response to global skepticism about responsibility—the view that no one is fit to be held responsible for anything. Though P.F. Strawson offered a highly influential account of holding and being responsible, his argument is widely considered to fail as a response to global skepticism. The primary worry is that he only describes our practice of holding responsible but does not justify it. I propose an unorthodox Strawson-style account of holding and being responsible and employ that (...) account to offer an argument against global skepticism which not only describes but also justifies our practice of holding individuals responsible. A key innovation of my account is that it rejects the Humean idea that evaluative beliefs cannot motivate absent aid from independent desire. Rejecting that idea allows us to preserve the beauty of Strawson’s original reactive attitudes account, which cites specific emotions as the only attitudes involved in holding responsible. I go on to develop the moral psychology at work which allows me to support the idea that holding responsible involves more than emotional responses to an individual’s behavior. This also grounds support for the idea that the community of morally responsible agents is likely wider than traditionally thought. Furthermore, I immunize my account and argument to well-entrenched concerns for Strawson-style views. Often I achieve this immunity by adopting views that are thought to be incompatible with a Strawson-style argument. These views are typically embraced by skeptics or other anti-Strawsonian theorists. For instance, contrary to tradition, I show that a Strawson-style argument can be founded on the idea that experiencing individuals as natural, mechanistic beings is compatible with the attitudes involved in holding an individual responsible. I go on to show that the theses I argue for together with others allow us to accurately describe and justify our practice of holding individuals responsible. Adviser: Mark van Roojen. (shrink)

This paper reveals and corrects a flaw in Nozick’s account of knowledge via inference. First, two counterexamples are provided by considering cases which would not typically be regarded as instances of knowledge although they are counted as such by Nozick’s theory. Then the general form of these counterexamples is given. From this it is apparent that the counterexamples show that Nozick’s theory fails to take account of cases in which the subject infers q from p, but in counterfactual situations some (...) proposition other than p would entail q. In view of this, the theory is then revised to eliminate the counterexamples. (shrink)

This paper reveals and corrects a flaw in Nozick’s account of knowledge via inference. First, two counterexamples are provided by considering cases which would not typically be regarded as instances of knowledge although they are counted as such by Nozick’s theory. Then the general form of these counterexamples is given. From this it is apparent that the counterexamples show that Nozick’s theory fails to take account of cases in which the subject infers q from p, but in counterfactual situations some (...) proposition other than p would entail q. In view of this, the theory is then revised to eliminate the counterexamples. (shrink)

Valerie Tiberius’s Moral Psychology: An Introduction is a gem. Clearly and crisply drawing on empirical and non-empirical work in philosophy and psychology, Tiberius illuminates the many ways in which the issues central to moral psychology arise in and bear on normative ethics, meta-ethics, and the study of agency and responsibility. Tiberius articulates deep debates, complex concepts and rationales, intricate empirical data points, and obscure assumptions with an enviable ease. Further, though the book is pitched in a manner that is accessible (...) to novices, it offers experts an opportunity to see their discipline through a very informed and distinctive lens. In particular, Tiberius imparts a rich and robust picture of value theory that can overlay the expert’s own and thereby enrich the concerns and problems that make up its subject matter. I hope that through this review I can add to the book’s excellence in two ways.First, one of the most helpful things to appear in the book are its g .. (shrink)

Ishtiyaque Haji develops and supports the view that alternative possibilities are a requirement on many morally-relevant facets of our lives. I argue that the main argument he offers for his view fails due primarily to two things. First, Haji employs a Jackson-type case to support a claim that such cases fail to support. Second, Haji offers no reason to think that we must understand the 'can' in certain of his important principles as alethic. These troubles vex the insightful support Haji (...) offers for his many, wide-ranging conclusions. (shrink)