Some Historical Background What follows in this section is a brief outline of the origins and trajectory of reflection on moral responsibility in the Western philosophical tradition. Against this background, a distinction will be drawn between two conceptions of moral responsibility that have exerted considerable influence on subsequent thinkers. An understanding of the concept of moral responsibility and its application is present implicitly in some of the earliest surviving Greek texts, i.
The Nature of Moral Responsibility: New Essays, Oxford University Press,pp.
This volume not only reflects contemporary interest in the subject, but also provides a sense of which aspects need development. The editors "have elected to set aside metaphysical questions about the contested compatibility of free will, moral responsibility, and determinism" in favor of contributions focused on "the nature of responsibility itself -- what it is, what form or forms it can take, and its relation to our complex practices of holding responsible" This accords with my own sense of things.
Judging from citations, my thinking about moral responsibility is shaped by many of the same figures as the thinking of most if not all of the contributors to this volume.
I, too, am a fan of P. Jay Wallace and Stephen Darwall. Nevertheless, I'm struck by this volume's dissimilarity to the collections on which I cut my philosophical teeth.
John Martin Fischer and Mark Ravizza's Perspectives on Moral Responsibility and Watson's Free Will include contributions on libertarianism, alternative possibilities and agent-causation.
To be sure, these earlier collections also include Strawson's essay, as well as chapters on the themes central to this volume.
But these common themes are placed in a different context there than they are here. This is not a criticism or complaint.
But it seems noteworthy. Indeed, it seems to be a sign of the times. The Nature of Moral Responsibility may be seen as a sequel, of sorts, to Blame: Its Nature and Norms, edited by D.
Justin Coates and Neal A. Tognazzini and also published by Oxford University Press Six contributors to and two editors of the present volume also contributed chapters to that one. This is not to suggest that the present volume is redundant.
There are new voices here, and the old voices find new and interesting things to say.Of all published articles, the following were the most read within the past 12 months.
Without assuming that anyone ever is morally responsible for anything, Zimmerman analyzes the nature of the conditions for ascribing moral responsibility.
book develops and defends this broadly Kantian approach to moral responsibility with great care, precision, and philosophical refinement.
Zimmerman presents a distinctive theory of moral responsibility, and the book is both meticulous and insightful. It is a worthwhile and useful book. An essay on moral responsibility User Review - Not Available - Book Verdict. Without assuming that anyone ever is morally responsible for anything, Zimmerman analyzes the nature of the conditions for ascribing moral responsibility.
Several philosophers build their accounts of moral responsibility on this luck-free condition, and we may call their views Luck-Free Moral Responsibility (LFMR). I offer moral and metaphysical arguments against LFMR.
First, I maintain that considerations of fairness that often motivate LFMR do not require its adoption. ©— Bioethics Research Library Box Washington DC