Home  ›  what does it mean to be responsible for your moral decisions

what does it mean to be responsible for your moral decisions

Written By Friday, April 8, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Concept in ethics

"Personal responsibility" redirects here. For other types of responsibility, see Responsibility.

In philosophy, moral responsibleness is the status of morally deserving praise, arraign, advantage, or punishment for an act or omission in accordance with one'southward moral obligations.[1] [ii] Deciding what (if anything) counts as "morally obligatory" is a principal concern of ethics.

Philosophers refer to people who have moral responsibility for an action as moral agents. Agents have the adequacy to reverberate upon their situation, to class intentions about how they volition human activity, and then to comport out that action. The notion of gratis will has become an important issue in the debate on whether individuals are ever morally responsible for their deportment and, if so, in what sense. Incompatibilists regard determinism as at odds with free will, whereas compatibilists think the two can coexist.

Moral responsibility does not necessarily equate to legal responsibleness. A person is legally responsible for an effect when a legal system is liable to penalise that person for that event. Although information technology may often be the case that when a person is morally responsible for an act, they are also legally responsible for it, the two states practise not always coincide.[ citation needed ]

Philosophical stance [edit]

Various philosophical positions exist, disagreeing over determinism and free will

Depending on how a philosopher conceives of free volition, they volition take unlike views on moral responsibility.[three]

Metaphysical libertarianism [edit]

Metaphysical libertarians think actions are not always causally determined, allowing for the possibility of gratuitous will and thus moral responsibility. All libertarians are as well incompatibilists; for think that if causal determinism were true of human being action, people would not have free will. Accordingly, some libertarians subscribe to the principle of alternate possibilities, which posits that moral responsibility requires that people could have acted differently.[4]

Phenomenological considerations are sometimes invoked past incompatibilists to defend a libertarian position. In daily life, nosotros feel as though choosing otherwise is a viable option. Although this feeling doesn't firmly establish the being of gratis volition, some incompatibilists claim the phenomenological feeling of alternate possibilities is a prerequisite for free will.[5]

Jean-Paul Sartre suggested that people sometimes avert incrimination and responsibleness by hiding behind determinism: "we are ever ready to take refuge in a belief in determinism if this freedom weighs upon us or if we need an excuse".[half-dozen]

A similar view is that individual moral culpability lies in individual character. That is, a person with the character of a murderer has no choice other than to murder, simply can still be punished because it is right to punish those of bad character. How one's character was determined is irrelevant from this perspective. Robert Cummins, for example, argues that people should not be judged for their private deportment, but rather for how those actions "reflect on their graphic symbol". If character (yet defined) is the dominant causal gene in determining one's choices, and one'south choices are morally wrong, then 1 should exist held accountable for those choices, regardless of genes and other such factors.[seven] [8]

In law, at that place is a known exception to the assumption that moral culpability lies in either individual grapheme or freely willed acts. The insanity defense force—or its corollary, diminished responsibility (a sort of appeal to the fallacy of the single crusade)—tin can be used to argue that the guilty deed was not the product of a guilty listen.[9] In such cases, the legal systems of almost Western societies assume that the person is in some way not at fault, because his actions were a consequence of abnormal brain office (implying brain part is a deterministic causal agent of mind and motive).

The argument from luck [edit]

The argument from luck is a criticism confronting the libertarian conception of moral responsibleness. It suggests that any given activity, and even a person's grapheme, is the result of diverse forces outside a person's control. It may non be appropriate, so, to agree that person solely morally responsible.[x] Thomas Nagel suggests that four different types of luck (including genetic influences and other external factors) finish up influencing the mode that a person'due south actions are evaluated morally. For instance, a person driving drunk may make it abode without incident, and however this activity of drunk driving might seem more morally objectionable if someone happens to jaywalk along his path (getting hit past the automobile).[xi]

This argument can be traced back to David Hume. If physical indeterminism is true, and so those events that are non determined are scientifically described as probabilistic or random. It is therefore argued that it is doubtful that one tin can praise or blame someone for performing an activity generated randomly past his nervous system (without there being any non-physical agency responsible for the observed probabilistic outcome).[12]

Difficult determinism [edit]

Difficult determinists (not to exist dislocated with Fatalists) often use liberty in practical moral considerations, rather than a notion of a costless will. Indeed, faced with the possibility that determinism requires a completely different moral arrangement, some proponents say "So much the worse for gratis will!".[xiii] Clarence Darrow, the famous defense attorney, pleaded the innocence of his clients, Leopold and Loeb, by invoking such a notion of difficult determinism.[14] During his summation, he declared:

What has this boy to practise with it? He was not his own male parent; he was not his own mother; he was not his ain grandparents. All of this was handed to him. He did not surround himself with governesses and wealth. He did not make himself. And notwithstanding he is to be compelled to pay.[14]

Paul the Campaigner, in his Epistle to the Romans addresses the question of moral responsibility every bit follows: "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make ane vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?"[15] In this view, individuals can withal exist dishonoured for their acts even though those acts were ultimately completely adamant past God.

Joshua Greene and Jonathan Cohen, researchers in the emerging field of neuroethics, debate, on the footing of such cases, that our current notion of moral responsibility is founded on libertarian (and dualist) intuitions.[16] They argue that cognitive neuroscience research (east.one thousand. neuroscience of gratuitous will) is undermining these intuitions by showing that the brain is responsible for our deportment, not just in cases of florid psychosis, but also in less obvious situations. For example, damage to the frontal lobe reduces the ability to weigh uncertain risks and make prudent decisions, and therefore leads to an increased likelihood that someone volition commit a violent criminal offense.[17] This is true not merely of patients with harm to the frontal lobe due to blow or stroke, simply also of adolescents, who show reduced frontal lobe activeness compared to adults,[18] and even of children who are chronically neglected or mistreated.[19] In each example, the guilty political party can, they argue, be said to accept less responsibility for his deportment.[sixteen] Greene and Cohen predict that, as such examples become more than common and well known, jurors' interpretations of free volition and moral responsibility will motion away from the intuitive libertarian notion that currently underpins them.

David Eagleman explains that nature and nurture cause all criminal beliefs. He likewise believes that science demands that modify and improvement, rather than guilt, must become the focus of the legal justice system.[20]

Greene and Cohen also argue that the legal arrangement does not require this libertarian estimation. Rather, they suggest that only retributive notions of justice, in which the goal of the legal system is to punish people for misdeeds, require the libertarian intuition. Many forms of ethically realistic and consequentialist approaches to justice, which are aimed at promoting future welfare rather than retribution, can survive even a hard determinist estimation of free will. Accordingly, the legal system and notions of justice can thus be maintained fifty-fifty in the face of emerging neuroscientific evidence undermining libertarian intuitions of free will.

Neuroscientist David Eagleman maintains similar ideas. Eagleman says that the legal justice system ought to go more forwards looking. He says information technology is wrong to ask questions of narrow culpability, rather than focusing on what is of import: what needs to change in a criminal's behavior and encephalon. Eagleman is not saying that no i is responsible for their crimes, but rather that the "sentencing phase" should correspond with modern neuroscientific bear witness. To Eagleman, it is damaging to entertain the illusion that a person can brand a single decision that is somehow, suddenly, independent of their physiology and history. He describes what scientists take learned from encephalon damaged patients, and offers the case of a school instructor who exhibited escalating pedophilic tendencies on 2 occasions—each time as results of growing tumors.[21] Eagleman besides warns that less attractive people and minorities tend to get longer sentencing—all of which he sees as symptoms that more science is needed in the legal system.[twenty]

Hard incompatibilism [edit]

Derk Pereboom defends a skeptical position about free will he calls hard incompatibilism. In his view, nosotros cannot have free will if our deportment are causally determined by factors across our command, or if our actions are indeterministic events—if they happen by chance. Pereboom conceives of gratuitous will as the control in activity required for moral responsibility in the sense involving deserved blame and praise, punishment and reward.[22] While he acknowledges that libertarian agent causation, the capacity of agents as substances to crusade actions without being causally determined by factors across their control, is still a possibility, he regards it every bit unlikely confronting the backdrop of the most defensible physical theories. Without libertarian agent causation, Pereboom thinks the complimentary will required for moral responsibleness in the desert-involving sense is not in the offing.[23] However, he also contends that by contrast with the backward-looking, desert-involving sense of moral responsibility, forward-looking senses are compatible with causal determination. For instance, causally adamant agents who act badly might justifiably be blamed with the aim of forming faulty character, reconciling impaired relationships, and protecting others from impairment they are apt to cause.[24]

Pereboom proposes that a feasible criminal jurisprudence is compatible with the deprival of deserved arraign and penalisation. His view rules out retributivist justifications for punishment, but it allows for incapacitation of dangerous criminals on the analogy with quarantine of carriers of dangerous diseases. Isolation of carriers of the Ebola virus can be justified on the basis of the right to defend against threat, a justification that does not reference desert. Pereboom contends that the illustration holds for incapacitation of dangerous criminals. He also argues that the less serious the threat, the more moderate the justifiable method of incapacitation; for sure crimes merely monitoring may be needed. In add-on, just as we should do what we can, within reasonable premises, to cure the carriers of the Ebola virus we quarantine, so we should aim to rehabilitate and reintegrate the criminals nosotros incapacitate. Pereboom also proposes that given hard incompatibilism, penalisation justified every bit full general deterrence may be legitimate when the penalties don't involve undermining an agent's capacity to live a meaningful, flourishing life, since justifying such moderate penalties demand non invoke desert.[25]

Compatibilism [edit]

Some forms of compatibilism suggest the term free volition should only be used to hateful something more like liberty.

Compatibilists argue that fifty-fifty if determinism were true, information technology would yet be possible for u.s. to have free will. The Hindu text The Bhagavad Gita offers one very early compatibilist account. Facing the prospect of going to battle against kinsmen to whom he has bonds, Arjuna despairs. Krishna attempts to assuage Arjuna's anxieties. He argues that forces of nature come together to produce deportment, and it is just vanity that causes us to regard ourselves as the amanuensis in accuse of these actions. However, Krishna adds this caveat: "... [Merely] the Man who knows the relation between the forces of Nature and actions, witnesses how some forces of Nature work upon other forces of Nature, and becomes [non] their slave..." When we are ignorant of the relationship between forces of Nature, we become passive victims of nomological facts. Krishna'south admonition is intended to become Arjuna to perform his duty (i.due east., fight in the battle), but he is also claiming that being a successful moral agent requires being mindful of the wider circumstances in which one finds oneself.[26] Paramahansa Yogananda also said, "Liberty ways the power to act past soul guidance, non by the compulsions of desires and habits. Obeying the ego leads to bondage; obeying the soul brings liberation."[27]

In the Western tradition, Baruch Spinoza echoes the Bhagavad Gita' s betoken about agents and natural forces, writing "men think themselves gratuitous because they are witting of their volitions and their ambition, and do not think, even in their dreams, of the causes by which they are disposed to wanting and willing, because they are ignorant [of those causes]."[23] Krishna is hostile to the influence of passions on our rational faculties, speaking upwardly instead for the value of heeding the dictates of one's own nature: "Fifty-fifty a wise human being acts under the impulse of his nature. Of what use is restraint?"[26] Spinoza similarly identifies the taming of i'due south passions as a fashion to extricate oneself from simply being passive in the confront of external forces and a way toward following our ain natures.[28]

P.F. Strawson is a major case of a contemporary compatibilist.[29] His paper "Freedom and Resentment," which adduces reactive attitudes, has been widely cited as an important response to incompatibilist accounts of free will.[xxx] Other compatibilists, who have been inspired by Strawson's paper, are as follows: Gary Watson,[31] Susan Wolf,[32] R. Jay Wallace,[33] Paul Russell,[34] and David Shoemaker.[35]

Other views [edit]

Daniel Dennett asks why anyone would care about whether someone had the property of responsibility and speculates that the thought of moral responsibility may be "a purely metaphysical hankering".[36]

Bruce Waller has argued, in Against Moral Responsibility (MIT Press), that moral responsibility "belongs with the ghosts and gods and that information technology cannot survive in a naturalistic surroundings devoid of miracles".[37] We cannot punish some other for wrong acts committed, contends Waller, because the causal forces which precede and have brought about the acts may ultimately exist reduced to luck, namely, factors over which the individual has no control. Ane may non be blamed even for ane's grapheme traits, he maintains, since they too are heavily influenced by evolutionary, environmental, and genetic factors (inter alia).[37] Although his view would autumn in the same category as the views of philosophers like Dennett who argue against moral responsibleness, Waller's view differs in an important way: He tries to, as he puts it, "rescue" gratis volition from moral responsibleness (Run across Affiliate 3).[38] This motion goes against the commonly held assumption that how one feels about free will is ipso facto a claim almost moral responsibleness.[39]

Epistemic Status for Moral Responsibility [edit]

In philosophical discussions of moral responsibleness, two necessary conditions are commonly cited: the control (or freedom) status (which answers the question 'did the individual doing the action in question take free will?') and the epistemic condition, the erstwhile of which is explored in the in a higher place give-and-take.[40] [41] The epistemic condition, in contrast to the control condition, focuses on the question 'was the individual enlightened of, for instance, the moral implications of what she did?' Not all philosophers think this condition to be a distinct condition, separate from the control condition: For instance, Alfred Mele thinks that the epistemic condition is a component of the control condition.[42] Yet, there seems to be philosophical consensus of sorts that it is both distinct and explanatorily relevant.[43] I major concept associated with the condition is "sensation." According to those philosophers who affirm this condition, 1 needs to "aware" of iv things to be morally responsible: the action (which one is doing), its moral significance, consequences, and alternatives.[41]

Experimental research [edit]

Mauro suggests that a sense of personal responsibleness does not operate or evolve universally among humankind. He argues that it was absent-minded in the successful civilization of the Iroquois.[44]

In recent years, research in experimental philosophy has explored whether people's untutored intuitions about determinism and moral responsibility are compatibilist or incompatibilist.[45] Some experimental work has included cross-cultural studies.[46] Notwithstanding, the fence near whether people naturally have compatibilist or incompatibilist intuitions has not come out overwhelmingly in favor of one view or the other, finding evidence for both views. For instance, when people are presented with abstract cases that ask if a person could be morally responsible for an immoral human activity when they could not take done otherwise, people tend to say no, or give incompatibilist answers. When presented with a specific immoral human activity that a specific person committed, people tend to say that that person is morally responsible for their actions, fifty-fifty if they were determined (that is, people besides give compatibilist answers).[47]

The neuroscience of gratuitous volition investigates diverse experiments that might shed light on free will.[ commendation needed ]

Collective [edit]

When people attribute moral responsibility, they usually attribute it to private moral agents.[48] However, Joel Feinberg, among others, has argued that corporations and other groups of people tin can have what is called 'commonage moral responsibleness' for a state of affairs.[49] For example, when South Africa had an apartheid regime, the country'due south authorities might have been said to have had collective moral responsibility for the violation of the rights of non-European Due south Africans.

Psychopathy'southward lack of sense of responsibility [edit]

One of the attributes defined for psychopathy is "failure to accept responsibleness for ain deportment".[fifty]

Artificial systems [edit]

The emergence of automation, robotics and related technologies prompted the question, 'Can an bogus organization exist morally responsible?'[51] [52] [53] The question has a closely related variant, 'When (if ever) does moral responsibility transfer from its human creator(s) to the organization?'.[54] [55]

The questions arguably abut with but are singled-out from car ideals, which is concerned with the moral behavior of artificial systems. Whether an bogus organisation'due south beliefs qualifies it to be morally responsible has been a cardinal focus of debate.

Arguments that artificial systems cannot be morally responsible [edit]

Batya Friedman and Peter Kahn Jr. posited that intentionality is a necessary condition for moral responsibility, and that reckoner systems equally conceivable in 1992 in material and structure could not have intentionality.[56]

Arthur Kuflik asserted that humans must bear the ultimate moral responsibility for a computer'south decisions, equally information technology is humans who design the computers and write their programs. He further proposed that humans tin never relinquish oversight of computers.[55]

Frances Grodzinsky et al. considered bogus systems that could exist modelled as finite country machines. They posited that if the machine had a fixed state transition tabular array, and then it could not be morally responsible. If the automobile could modify its table, then the automobile'due south designer still retained some moral responsibility.[54]

Patrick Hew argued that for an artificial organization to be morally responsible, its rules for behaviour and the mechanisms for supplying those rules must not be supplied entirely past external humans. He further argued that such systems are a substantial departure from technologies and theory as extant in 2014. An artificial system based on those technologies will deport zero responsibility for its behaviour. Moral responsibility is apportioned to the humans that created and programmed the arrangement.[57]

(A more than extensive review of arguments may be plant in.[57])

Arguments that artificial systems can be morally responsible [edit]

Colin Allen et al. proposed that an bogus arrangement may be morally responsible if its behaviours are functionally indistinguishable from a moral person, coining the idea of a 'Moral Turing Exam'.[51] They subsequently disavowed the Moral Turing Test in recognition of controversies surrounding the Turing Examination.[52]

Andreas Matthias described a 'responsibility gap' where to hold humans responsible for a machine would be an injustice, but to hold the automobile responsible would challenge 'traditional' ways of ascription. He proposed 3 cases where the car's behaviour ought to be attributed to the machine and non its designers or operators. First, he argued that mod machines are inherently unpredictable (to some degree), simply perform tasks that need to be performed even so cannot be handled by simpler ways. Second, that there are increasing 'layers of obscurity' between manufacturers and organisation, as hand coded programs are replaced with more sophisticated means. 3rd, in systems that have rules of operation that can be changed during the operation of the machine.[58]

(A more than extensive review of arguments may be found in.[57])

Meet also [edit]

  • Ability
  • Accountability
  • Declaration of Human Duties and Responsibilities
  • House of Responsibility
  • Incompatibilism
  • Legal liability
  • Moral agency
  • Moral gamble

References [edit]

  1. ^ Klein, Martha (2005). "responsibleness". In Honderich, Ted (ed.). Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press. doi:x.1093/acref/9780199264797.001.0001. ISBN978-0199264797. The term 'moral responsibility' covers (i) the having of a moral obligation and (ii) the fulfilment of the criteria for deserving arraign or praise (punishment or reward) for a morally meaning human activity or omission.
  2. ^ Eshleman, Andrew (2009). "moral responsibility". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford Academy. Many accept held that one distinct feature of persons is their status [accent added] as morally responsible agents
  3. ^ Peter Cave (2002). Responsibility in Law and Morality. Hart Publishing. p. 4. ISBN978-1841133218. A mutual statement in the philosophical literature is that the essence of responsibility is to be found in what it means to exist a human amanuensis and to have free will...There is disagreement amongst philosophers nigh what liberty ways, nearly whether human being beings are free in the relevant sense, and about the relevance of freedom to responsibility... Nevertheless,...our responsibility practices have adult, and thrive, independently of 'the truth' well-nigh human liberty.
  4. ^ Woolfolk, Robert L.; Doris, John M.; Brianna, John M. (2008). "Identification, Situational Constraint, and Social Cognition: Studies in the Attribution of Moral Responsibility". In Knobe, Joshua; Nichols, Shaun (eds.). Experimental Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 61–eighty. ISBN978-0195323269.
  5. ^ Nahmias, Eddy; Morris, Stephen G.; Nadelhoffer, Thomas N.; Turner, Jason (2008). "Is Incompatibilism Intuitive?". In Knobe, Joshua; Nichols, Shaun (eds.). Experimental Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 81–104. ISBN978-0195323269.
  6. ^ Sartre, J.P. (1943). Existence and Nothingness, reprint 1993. New York: Washington Square Printing.
  7. ^ Vuoso, M. (1987) "Groundwork Responsibility and Alibi," Yale Law Journal, 96, pp. 1680–1681
  8. ^ Cummins, R. "Culpability" and Mental Disorder", p. 244
  9. ^ Goldstein, A. M., Morse, Southward. J. & Shapiro, D. L. 2003 "Evaluation of criminal responsibleness". In Forensic psychology. vol. 11 (ed. A. M. Goldstein), pp. 381–406. New York: Wiley.
  10. ^ Moral Luck. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Enquiry Lab, Stanford University. 2004.
  11. ^ Nagel, Thomas. 1976, "Moral Luck", Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplementary vol. fifty: 137–155.
  12. ^ Hume, D. (1740). A Treatise of Human being Nature (1967 edition). Oxford University Press, Oxford. ISBN 0872202305
  13. ^ Benditt, Theodore (1998) Philosophy And so and Now with eds. Arnold and Graham. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing ISBN 1557867429
  14. ^ a b Darrow, Clarence, 1924, "The Plea of Clarence Darrow, in Defence of Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold, Jr., On Trial for Murder" folio reference is to the reprint in Philosophical Explorations: Freedom, God, and Goodness, Due south. Cahn (ed.), New York: Prometheus Books, 1989.
  15. ^ St. Paul, "Epistle to the Romans", ix:21, Male monarch James Bible Tennessee:The Gideons International
  16. ^ a b Greene, J. Cohen, J. (2004). "For the law, neuroscience changes zip and everything". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 359, 1775–1785.
  17. ^ Brower M.C. and Price B.H. (2001). "Neuropsychiatry of frontal lobe dysfunction in trigger-happy and criminal behaviour: a critical review". Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 71: 720–726.
  18. ^ Steinberg, L., Scott, E. S. (2003). "Less guilty by reason of adolescence: developmental immaturity, diminished responsibleness, and the juvenile death penalty".American Psychologist 58, 1009–1018.
  19. ^ Teicher, M. H., Anderson, South. L., Polcari, A., Anderson, C. M., Navalta, C. P., and Kim, D. Grand. (2003). "The neurobiological consequences of early stress and childhood maltreatment". Neuroscience and Behavioral Reviews, 27: 33–44.
  20. ^ a b "David Eagleman on Morality and the Encephalon". philosophy bites.
  21. ^ "Brain tumour causes uncontrollable paedophilia". New Scientist.
  22. ^ Pereboom, Derk (2001). Living without Complimentary Will. Cambridge: Cambridge.
  23. ^ a b Pereboom, Derk (2005). "Defending Hard Incompatibilism". Free Volition and Moral Responsibility. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. pp. 228–247. ISBN978-1405138109.
  24. ^ Pereboom, Derk (2014), 'Free Will, Bureau, and Meaning in Life', Oxford: Oxford University Printing, Chapter 6.
  25. ^ Pereboom, Derk (2001), Living without Gratuitous Will, Chapter seven; Pereboom, Derk (2014), Free Will, Agency, and Significant in Life, Chapter 7.
  26. ^ a b The Bhagavad Gita. New York: Penguin Books. 1962.
  27. ^ An Inspirational Thought for Each Twenty-four hour period. California: Self-Realization Fellowship. 1977.
  28. ^ "Baruch Spinoza". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Retrieved iii May 2011.
  29. ^ Talbert, Matthew (Wintertime 2019), "Moral Responsibility", in Zalta, Edward Northward. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2020-05-05
  30. ^ Strawson, P.F. (2008). Freedom and Resentment and Other Essays. doi:x.4324/9780203882566. hdl:2027/mdp.39015020703305. ISBN978-0203882566.
  31. ^ Watson, Gary (2004-07-15), "Responsibility and the Limits of Evil: Variations on a Strawsonian Theme", Agency and Answerability, Oxford Academy Press, pp. 219–259, doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199272273.003.0009, ISBN978-0199272273
  32. ^ Wolf, Susan (1981). "The importance of Free Volition". Listen. Xc (359): 386–405. doi:x.1093/mind/xc.359.386. ISSN 0026-4423.
  33. ^ Wallace, R. Jay (2016), "Moral sentiments", Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Routledge, doi:10.4324/9780415249126-l093-i, ISBN978-0415250696
  34. ^ Russell, Paul (2017-10-19). "Strawson's Manner of Naturalizing Responsibility". Oxford Scholarship Online. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190627607.003.0003.
  35. ^ Shoemaker, David (Oct 2017). "Response-Dependent Responsibility; or, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Arraign". Philosophical Review. 126 (4): 481–527. doi:10.1215/00318108-4173422. ISSN 0031-8108.
  36. ^ Dennett, D., (1984) Elbow Room: The Varieties of Gratis Will Worth Wanting. Bradford Books. ISBN 0262540428
  37. ^ a b "Moral Responsibility", Confronting Moral Responsibility, The MIT Press, 2011, doi:10.7551/mitpress/9124.003.0002, ISBN978-0262298940
  38. ^ Waller, Bruce (2011). Confronting Moral Responsibility. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 43–57. ISBN978-0262298070.
  39. ^ O'Connor, Timothy; Franklin, Christopher (2020), "Gratuitous Will", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Bound 2020 ed.), Metaphysics Enquiry Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2020-05-05
  40. ^ Fischer, John Martin; Ravizza, Marker (1998). Responsibility and Control. Cambridge Academy Press. pp. 12–13. doi:x.1017/cbo9780511814594. ISBN978-0521480550.
  41. ^ a b Rudy-Hiller, Fernando (2018), "The Epistemic Status for Moral Responsibility", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Autumn 2018 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2020-08-04
  42. ^ Mele, Alfred (June 2010). "Moral responsibility for actions: epistemic and freedom weather". Philosophical Explorations. 13 (2): 101–111. doi:x.1080/13869790903494556. ISSN 1386-9795. S2CID 143362163.
  43. ^ "The Epistemic Condition for Moral Responsibility > Notes (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)". plato.stanford.edu . Retrieved 2020-08-04 .
  44. ^ Mauro, Frédéric (1964). Fifty'expansion européenne (1680–1870) [European expansion (1680–1870)]. Nouvelle Clio: L'Histoire et ses problèmes (in French). Vol. 27. Paris: Presses Universitaires de French republic. p. 213. Ces langues nouvelles vehiculent des concepts nouveaux et des idées parfois fort difficiles a comprendre: par exemple le principe de responsibilité personnelle pour les Iroquiens. [Translation: These new languages innovate new concepts and new ideas—sometimes very difficult to sympathize—for example the principle of personal responsibility for the Iroquois.]
  45. ^ Nahmias, Eddy; Stephen Morris; Thomas Nadelhoffer; Jason Turner (2006). "Is Incompatibilism Intuitive?". Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 73 (1): 28–52. CiteSeerX10.1.1.364.1083. doi:10.1111/j.1933-1592.2006.tb00603.ten.
  46. ^ Hagop Sarkissian, Amita Chatterjee, Felipe De Brigard, Joshua Knobe, Shaun Nichols, Smita Sirker (forthcoming)."Is conventionalities in free will a cultural universal?" Archived 2015-11-20 at the Wayback Car Mind & Language
  47. ^ Nichols, Shaun; Joshua Knobe (2007). "Moral Responsibility and Determinism: The Cerebral Science of Folk Intuitions". Noûs. 41 (4): 663–685. CiteSeerXten.1.1.175.1091. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0068.2007.00666.ten.
  48. ^ Giesler, Markus; Veresiu, Ela (2014). "Creating the Responsible Consumer: Moralistic Governance Regimes and Consumer Subjectivity". Journal of Consumer Research. 41 (Oct): 849–867. doi:10.1086/677842.
  49. ^ Risser, David T. 2006. Collective Moral Responsibleness. Cyberspace Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Accessed eight Sept 2007)
  50. ^ Harpur, T. J.; Hare, R. D.; Hakstian, A. R. (1989). "Two-factor conceptualization of psychopathy: Construct validity and assessment implications". Psychological Cess. ane (1): 6–17. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.ane.ane.6.
  51. ^ a b Allen, Colin; Varner, Gary; Zinser, Jason (2000). "Prolegomena to any future artificial moral agent". Periodical of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence. 12 (3): 251–261. doi:x.1080/09528130050111428. S2CID 17838736.
  52. ^ a b Allen, Colin; Smit, Iva; Wallach, Wendell (September 2005). "Artificial Morality: Top-down, Lesser-up and Hybrid Approaches". Ethics and It. seven (3): 149–155. CiteSeerX10.one.1.307.7558. doi:x.1007/s10676-006-0004-4. S2CID 4563893.
  53. ^ Sparrow, Robert (2007). "Killer Robots". Journal of Applied Philosophy. 24 (1): 62–77. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5930.2007.00346.x.
  54. ^ a b Grodzinsky, Frances S.; Miller, Keith W.; Wolf, Marty J. (21 Jun 2008). "The ethics of designing artificial agents". Ethics and Data Applied science. 10 (ii–iii): 115–121. doi:10.1007/s10676-008-9163-9. S2CID 41344925.
  55. ^ a b Kuflik, Arthur (1999). "Computers in control: Rational transfer of authority or irresponsible abdication of autonomy?". Ethics and It. 1 (3): 173–184. doi:ten.1023/A:1010087500508. S2CID 44313234.
  56. ^ Friedman, Batya; Kahn, Jr., Peter H. (January 1992). "Human Agency and Responsible Computing: Implications for Computer Arrangement Pattern". Journal of Systems and Software. 17 (1): 7–14. doi:10.1016/0164-1212(92)90075-u.
  57. ^ a b c Hew, Patrick Chisan (13 May 2014). "Bogus moral agents are infeasible with foreseeable technologies". Ethics and Information technology. 16 (3): 197–206. doi:ten.1007/s10676-014-9345-six. S2CID 18431764.
  58. ^ Matthias, Andreas (2004). "The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata". Ethics and Information Technology. 6 (iii): 175–183. CiteSeerX10.one.1.456.8299. doi:x.1007/s10676-004-3422-ane. S2CID 21907954.

Further reading [edit]

  • Evans, Rod L. (2008). "Responsibility". In Hamowy, Ronald (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. 1000 Oaks, CA: Sage; Cato Institute. pp. 425–427. doi:10.4135/9781412965811.n261. ISBN978-1412965804. LCCN 2008009151. OCLC 750831024.
  • Meyer, Susan Sauvé, Chappell, T.D.J. 'Aristotle on Moral Responsibility' . Volume review, Mind, New Series, Vol. 105, No. 417 (January., 1996), pp. 181–186, Oxford University Press.
  • Klein, Martha (1995). "Responsibleness". In Ted Honderich (ed.). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy . Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN978-0198661320.
  • Risser, David T. (2006). "Collective Moral Responsibility". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Retrieved 8 September 2007.
  • Rosebury, Brian (October 1995). "Moral Responsibleness and "Moral Luck"". The Philosophical Review. 104 (4): 499–524. doi:10.2307/2185815. JSTOR 2185815.
  • Waller, Bruce N. (2005). "Liberty, Moral Responsibility, and Ethics". Consider Ethics: Theory, Readings and Contemporary Issues . New York: Pearson Longman. pp. 215–233. ISBN978-0321202802.

External links [edit]

  • Free Will, Determinism, and Moral Responsibility – The Whole Thing in Cursory by Ted Honderich
  • "Moral responsibility", Andrew Eshleman, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2004 Edition)
  • "Responsibility". Cyberspace Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  • "Praise and Arraign". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  • "Collective Moral Responsibleness". Cyberspace Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

gethershollue.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_responsibility

0 Response to "what does it mean to be responsible for your moral decisions"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel