MORAL RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT GENERAL ABILITY

It is widely thought that, to be morally responsible for some action or omission, an agent must have had, at the very least, the general ability to do otherwise. As we argue, however, there are counterexamples to the claim that moral responsibility requires the general ability to do otherwise. We pr...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Philosophical quarterly 2019-01, Vol.69 (274), p.22-40
Hauptverfasser: Cyr, Taylor W., Swenson, Philip
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 40
container_issue 274
container_start_page 22
container_title The Philosophical quarterly
container_volume 69
creator Cyr, Taylor W.
Swenson, Philip
description It is widely thought that, to be morally responsible for some action or omission, an agent must have had, at the very least, the general ability to do otherwise. As we argue, however, there are counterexamples to the claim that moral responsibility requires the general ability to do otherwise. We present several cases in which agents lack the general ability to do otherwise and yet are intuitively morally responsible for what they do, and we argue that such cases raise problems for various kinds of accounts of moral responsibility. We suggest two alternative approaches to thinking about the connection between moral responsibility and abilities to do otherwise, one of which denies that there is any ability-to-do-otherwise requirement on moral responsibility and the other of which requires only an opportunity to do otherwise. We also argue that a general-ability-to-do-otherwise requirement not only faces counterexamples but also lacks positive motivation.
doi_str_mv 10.1093/pq/pqy034
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1093_pq_pqy034</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>48586314</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>48586314</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c286t-b7246b5a6fb26c2004d8008b94aaa64f8a7219c97750e0e64dd91d1c807636253</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9j01Lw0AQhhdRMFYP_gAhV8HY2d3JfhxjiW0gbaRNEU_L5gssStPdXvrvmxJxGBh434eBh5BHCq8UNJ_2h2FPwPGKBBSFjDSj_JoEAJxGCjTekjvvdzBMLGVAXpbFOsnDdbr5KFab7C3Ls_Ir_MzKRbEtw3m6Si91Mub35KazP759-LsTsn1Py9kiyot5NkvyqGZKHKNKMhRVbEVXMVEzAGwUgKo0WmsFdspKRnWtpYyhhVZg02ja0FqBFFywmE_I8_i3dnvvXduZ3n3_WncyFMxF0_QHM2oO7NPI7vxx7_5BVLESnCI_AzzDSn8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>MORAL RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT GENERAL ABILITY</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><creator>Cyr, Taylor W. ; Swenson, Philip</creator><creatorcontrib>Cyr, Taylor W. ; Swenson, Philip</creatorcontrib><description>It is widely thought that, to be morally responsible for some action or omission, an agent must have had, at the very least, the general ability to do otherwise. As we argue, however, there are counterexamples to the claim that moral responsibility requires the general ability to do otherwise. We present several cases in which agents lack the general ability to do otherwise and yet are intuitively morally responsible for what they do, and we argue that such cases raise problems for various kinds of accounts of moral responsibility. We suggest two alternative approaches to thinking about the connection between moral responsibility and abilities to do otherwise, one of which denies that there is any ability-to-do-otherwise requirement on moral responsibility and the other of which requires only an opportunity to do otherwise. We also argue that a general-ability-to-do-otherwise requirement not only faces counterexamples but also lacks positive motivation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0031-8094</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1467-9213</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/pq/pqy034</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford University Press</publisher><ispartof>The Philosophical quarterly, 2019-01, Vol.69 (274), p.22-40</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c286t-b7246b5a6fb26c2004d8008b94aaa64f8a7219c97750e0e64dd91d1c807636253</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c286t-b7246b5a6fb26c2004d8008b94aaa64f8a7219c97750e0e64dd91d1c807636253</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cyr, Taylor W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Swenson, Philip</creatorcontrib><title>MORAL RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT GENERAL ABILITY</title><title>The Philosophical quarterly</title><description>It is widely thought that, to be morally responsible for some action or omission, an agent must have had, at the very least, the general ability to do otherwise. As we argue, however, there are counterexamples to the claim that moral responsibility requires the general ability to do otherwise. We present several cases in which agents lack the general ability to do otherwise and yet are intuitively morally responsible for what they do, and we argue that such cases raise problems for various kinds of accounts of moral responsibility. We suggest two alternative approaches to thinking about the connection between moral responsibility and abilities to do otherwise, one of which denies that there is any ability-to-do-otherwise requirement on moral responsibility and the other of which requires only an opportunity to do otherwise. We also argue that a general-ability-to-do-otherwise requirement not only faces counterexamples but also lacks positive motivation.</description><issn>0031-8094</issn><issn>1467-9213</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNo9j01Lw0AQhhdRMFYP_gAhV8HY2d3JfhxjiW0gbaRNEU_L5gssStPdXvrvmxJxGBh434eBh5BHCq8UNJ_2h2FPwPGKBBSFjDSj_JoEAJxGCjTekjvvdzBMLGVAXpbFOsnDdbr5KFab7C3Ls_Ir_MzKRbEtw3m6Si91Mub35KazP759-LsTsn1Py9kiyot5NkvyqGZKHKNKMhRVbEVXMVEzAGwUgKo0WmsFdspKRnWtpYyhhVZg02ja0FqBFFywmE_I8_i3dnvvXduZ3n3_WncyFMxF0_QHM2oO7NPI7vxx7_5BVLESnCI_AzzDSn8</recordid><startdate>20190101</startdate><enddate>20190101</enddate><creator>Cyr, Taylor W.</creator><creator>Swenson, Philip</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20190101</creationdate><title>MORAL RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT GENERAL ABILITY</title><author>Cyr, Taylor W. ; Swenson, Philip</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c286t-b7246b5a6fb26c2004d8008b94aaa64f8a7219c97750e0e64dd91d1c807636253</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cyr, Taylor W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Swenson, Philip</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>The Philosophical quarterly</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cyr, Taylor W.</au><au>Swenson, Philip</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>MORAL RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT GENERAL ABILITY</atitle><jtitle>The Philosophical quarterly</jtitle><date>2019-01-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>69</volume><issue>274</issue><spage>22</spage><epage>40</epage><pages>22-40</pages><issn>0031-8094</issn><eissn>1467-9213</eissn><abstract>It is widely thought that, to be morally responsible for some action or omission, an agent must have had, at the very least, the general ability to do otherwise. As we argue, however, there are counterexamples to the claim that moral responsibility requires the general ability to do otherwise. We present several cases in which agents lack the general ability to do otherwise and yet are intuitively morally responsible for what they do, and we argue that such cases raise problems for various kinds of accounts of moral responsibility. We suggest two alternative approaches to thinking about the connection between moral responsibility and abilities to do otherwise, one of which denies that there is any ability-to-do-otherwise requirement on moral responsibility and the other of which requires only an opportunity to do otherwise. We also argue that a general-ability-to-do-otherwise requirement not only faces counterexamples but also lacks positive motivation.</abstract><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><doi>10.1093/pq/pqy034</doi><tpages>19</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0031-8094
ispartof The Philosophical quarterly, 2019-01, Vol.69 (274), p.22-40
issn 0031-8094
1467-9213
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1093_pq_pqy034
source Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)
title MORAL RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT GENERAL ABILITY
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-10T11%3A17%3A16IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=MORAL%20RESPONSIBILITY%20WITHOUT%20GENERAL%20ABILITY&rft.jtitle=The%20Philosophical%20quarterly&rft.au=Cyr,%20Taylor%20W.&rft.date=2019-01-01&rft.volume=69&rft.issue=274&rft.spage=22&rft.epage=40&rft.pages=22-40&rft.issn=0031-8094&rft.eissn=1467-9213&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/pq/pqy034&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_cross%3E48586314%3C/jstor_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=48586314&rfr_iscdi=true