排序方式: 共有5条查询结果,搜索用时 0 毫秒
1
1.
Pamela Hieronymi 《Philosophical Studies》2008,137(1):19-30
In his In Praise of Blame, George Sher aims to provide an analysis and defense of blame. In fact, he aims to provide an analysis that will itself yield
a defense by allowing him to argue that morality and blame “stand or fall together.” He thus opposes anyone who recommends
jettisoning blame while preserving (the rest of) morality. In this comment, I examine Sher’s defense of blame. Though I am
much in sympathy with Sher’s strategy of defending blame by providing an analysis that shows its connection to our commitment
to morality, I question his execution of this strategy. Sher hopes to defend our blaming practices by showing our dispositions
to them to be a merely contingent consequence of a belief–desire pair that is itself justified by whatever justifies our commitment
to morality. I doubt our blaming practices can be defended in this way. In explaining my doubts, I provide a short comparison
of Sher’s approach with that of P. F. Strawson in “Freedom of Resentment.” I suggest that we might do better by exploring
the connection between our commitment to morality and our blaming practices themselves.
相似文献
Pamela HieronymiEmail: |
2.
Michael McKenna 《Philosophical Studies》2009,144(1):3-13
In this paper I offer from a source compatibilist’s perspective a critical discussion of Four Views on Free Will by John Martin Fischer, Robert Kane, Derk Pereboom, and Manuel Vargas. Sharing Fischer’s semi-compatibilist view, I propose modifications to his arguments while resisting his coauthors’ objections. I argue against Kane that he should give up the requirement that a free and morally responsible agent be able to do otherwise (in relevant cases). I argue against Pereboom that his famed manipulation argument be resisted by contending that the agents in it are free and responsible. And I also argue against Vargas by challenging the sense in which his revisionist thesis differs from a position like Fischer’s and mine. I close by reflecting on the nature of desert. All seem to assume it is central to the debate, but what is it? 相似文献
3.
John Martin Fischer 《The Journal of Ethics》2006,10(1-2):107-129
Various philosophers have argued that in order to be morally responsible, we need to be the "ultimate sources' of our choices
and behavior. Although there are different versions of this sort of argument, I identify a "picture' that lies behind them,
and I contend that this picture is misleading. Joel Feinberg helpfully suggested that we scale down what might initially be
thought to be legitimate demands on "self-creation,' rather than jettison the idea that we are truly and robustly responsible.
I follow Feinberg in rejecting various "inflated' demands on "origination,' "initiation,' or ultimate sourcehood. 相似文献
4.
Per-Erik Milam 《Canadian journal of philosophy》2016,46(1):102-122
Abolitionism is the view that if no one is responsible, we ought to abandon the reactive attitudes. This paper defends abolitionism against the claim, made by P.F. Strawson and others, that abandoning these attitudes precludes the formation and maintenance of valuable personal relationships. These anti-abolitionists claim (a) that one who abandons the reactive attitudes is unable to take personally others’ attitudes and actions regarding her, and (b) that taking personally is necessary for certain valuable relationships. I dispute both claims and argue that this objection exaggerates the role of the reactive attitudes and underestimates the importance of non-reactive moral emotions. 相似文献
5.
D. Justin Coates 《Canadian journal of philosophy》2019,49(2):208-229
Following P. F. Strawson, a number of philosophers have argued that if hard incompatibilism is true, then its truth would undermine the justification or value of our relationships with other persons. In this paper, I offer a novel defense of this claim. In particular, I argue that if hard incompatibilism is true, we cannot make sense of: the possibility of promissory obligation, the significance of consent, or the pro tanto wrongness of paternalistic intervention. Because these practices and normative commitments are central to our relationships as we currently conceive of them, it follows that hard incompatibilism has radically revisionary conclusions. 相似文献
1