December 25, 2019   |   by admin

Are Our Moral Responsibility Practices Justified? Wittgenstein, Strawson and Justification in ‘Freedom and Resentment’ (, British Journal for the History of . Strawson made a contribution to the free will versus determinism discussions by pointing out that whatever the deep metaphysical . Freedom and Resentment. compatibilist account of moral responsibility, the themes covered in “Freedom and. Resentment” extend beyond the free will debate. Strawson.

Author: Grogal Tygoktilar
Country: Bangladesh
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Life
Published (Last): 21 January 2016
Pages: 428
PDF File Size: 12.63 Mb
ePub File Size: 14.73 Mb
ISBN: 124-9-16840-882-2
Downloads: 67080
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Terg

It might be also asked whether there must be any such problematic implication of analyses of strasson in terms of quantifiers conceived in a more sophisticated way that emerged only after Russell wrote. Free Will and DeterminismNew York: Strawson’s purpose is to dissolve the so called problem of determinism and responsibility.

Freedom and Resentment

In the end, Strawson defends the determinist as right, the libertarian as resorting to “panicky metaphysics. Oxford University Press Martin, C.

Another case is the strawsin of, for example, the reality of colour by scientifically inspired philosophers.

Metaphilosophy and Free WillNew York: Ultimately I fix on him via his place in a spatio-temporal framework which is centred on my currently perceived environment. Prasad targets Strawson’s incompatibilist arguments, showing that determinism and free agency are incompatible.

Peter Frederick Strawson (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Third, what entitles Strawson to attach a priority within his account to empirical claims? What effect would, or should, the acceptance of the truth of a general thesis of determinism have upon these reactive attitudes? Shoemaker, David and Tognazzini, Neal, eds.

Strawson made a contribution to the free will versus determinism discussions by pointing out that whatever the deep metaphysical truth on these issues, people would not give up talking about and feeling moral responsibility, praise and blame, guilt and pride, crime and punishment, gratitude, resentment, and forgiveness.


The focus initially is not so much on thought as on linguistically referring to something when in conversation with an audience, and Strawson clarifies the relevant idea of talking about an item by invoking the notion of identifying reference which emerged in his theory of reference.

According to Michael Zimmerman, no interpretation of the idea that moral responsibility is essentially interpersonal captures a significant truth. Relatedly, this line of thought may help explain the historical preoccupation with whether responsibility for an action requires the ability to have done otherwise. A Study in Greek ValuesOxford: For example, one might judge that either one’s own existing community practice or some other community’s practice of holding responsible ought to be modified Fischer and Ravizza For further discussion of issues associated with moral responsibility, see the related entries below.

Peter F. Strawson, Freedom and resentment – PhilPapers

Essays on the Philosophy of T. Strawson develops a modest transcendental argument for the legitimacy of our moral responsibility practices. Whereas judgments are true or false and thereby can generate the need for justification, the desire for good will and those attitudes generated by it possess no truth value themselves, thereby eliminating any need for an external justification Magill It is difficult to overestimate the influence of Strawson’s work on the topic of moral responsibility.

Free Will and Reactive Frwedom It is a recurring theme in, or perhaps a recurring part of the method of, Strawson’s philosophical discussion of language that some aspects of language are more or less obvious to us.

The rejection of Transcendental Idealism requires Strawson to scrutinize Kant’s arguments for it, and he very carefully and sympathetically analyses, and of course rejects, Kant’s arguments about space and time, and geometry, and also the argument, presented in the Antinomies, that transcendental realism generates contradictions.


Such a view—call it the “answerability” model—appears to combine aspects of the attributability and accountability models see discussion by Watson and Shoemaker There srtawson no coherent way to explain what the materials are that such mechanisms work on, nor really how they work.

Moral Responsibility

A sustained objectivity of inter-personal attitude, and the human isolation which that would entail, does not seem to be something of which human beings would be capable, even if some general truth [ i. Strawson’s arguments are designed to preserve important moral concepts in the face of determinism, which he basically accepts, and strawsson will, which he finds incoherent.

In the first part of it Strawson presents a revised version of his account of the normal subject-predicate distinction, and also presents a partial theory of one particular case of subject expressions, namely proper names. The recognition of diversity within the concept or amongst concepts of moral responsibility has generated new reflection on whether the conditions on being morally responsible are in tension with one another Nagel ; G.

More specifically, would, or resenfment, the acceptance of the truth of the thesis lead to the decay or the repudiation of all such attitudes? Part 2 argues that despite our inability entirely to relinquish blaming and holding reeentment, there are considerations about the role of acquired perspectives in the initiation of wrongful actions that give us reason to question whether these are ever appropriate responses to wrongdoing.

Strawson’s concept of moral responsibility yields a compatibilist account of being responsible but one that departs significantly from earlier such accounts in two respects.