Philosophical Studies 173 (10):2845-2865 (2016)

Authors
Robert J. Hartman
Tulane University
Abstract
Every account of moral responsibility has conditions that distinguish between the consequences, actions, or traits that warrant praise or blame and those that do not. One intuitive condition is that praiseworthiness and blameworthiness cannot be affected by luck, that is, by factors beyond the agent’s control. 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. Second, I contend that LFMR has counterintuitive implications for the nature and scope of praiseworthiness and blameworthiness and that LFMR is vulnerable to a reductio ad absurdum. Third, I state some common reasons for thinking that LFMR’s commitment to true counterfactuals of libertarian freedom is problematic, and I argue that if there are no such true counterfactuals and if LFMR is true, a person is praiseworthy and blameworthy at most for a tiny fraction of her actions. Fourth, I argue that proponents of LFMR cannot escape this skeptical cost by appealing to a different kind of counterfactual of freedom. Fifth, I develop an anti-skeptical motivation to affirm the idea that luck can affect moral responsibility.
Keywords Luck  Moral luck  Moral responsibility  Fairness  Counterfactuals of freedom  Michael J. Zimmerman
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11098-016-0640-4
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Nature of Necessity.Alvin Plantinga - 1974 - Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
The Significance of Free Will.Robert Kane - 1996 - Oxford University Press USA.
Epistemic Luck.Duncan Pritchard - 2005 - Oxford University Press UK.
Free Will and Luck.Alfred R. Mele - 2006 - Oxford University Press.

View all 77 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Vigilance and Control.Samuel Murray & Manuel Vargas - 2020 - Philosophical Studies 177 (3):825-843.
The Objects of Moral Responsibility.Andrew Khoury - 2018 - Philosophical Studies 175 (6):1357-1381.
Kant Does Not Deny Resultant Moral Luck.Robert J. Hartman - 2019 - Midwest Studies in Philosophy 43 (1):136-150.
A Shelter From Luck: The Morality System Reconstructed.Matthieu Queloz - forthcoming - In András Szigeti & Matthew Talbert (eds.), Morality and Agency: Themes from Bernard Williams. Oxford University Press.

View all 12 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Moral Responsibility and "Moral Luck".Brian Rosebury - 1995 - Philosophical Review 104 (4):499-524.
Why Agent-Caused Actions Are Not Lucky.Meghan Griffith - 2010 - American Philosophical Quarterly 47 (1):43-56.
Getting Moral Luck Right.Lee John Whittington - 2014 - Metaphilosophy 45 (4-5):654-667.
Control, Risk, and the Role of Luck in Moral Responsibility.Eric Brown - 2011 - Philosophy in the Contemporary World 18 (2):11-21.
Moral Luck Defended.Nathan Hanna - 2014 - Noûs 48 (4):683-698.
A Problem for Moral Luck.Steven D. Hales - 2015 - Philosophical Studies 172 (9):2385-2403.
Individual Moral Responsibility and Luck.David Worster Concepcion - 2002 - Dissertation, The University of Wisconsin - Madison

Analytics

Added to PP index
2016-02-20

Total views
1,994 ( #1,993 of 2,462,368 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
48 ( #18,340 of 2,462,368 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes