Abstract
Taking up the idea that sanity is a necessary condition for responsibility, Susan Wolf sets forth two criteria for determining whether an actor is sane. I argue that the second criterion is inappropriate for this determination since it invokes some hidden axiological standard. I reexamine a case study that Wolf describes and arrive at a different judgment about the responsibility of the actor. I argue that the foremost criterion for determining whether an actor is sane is functional rather than axiological. The theory of responsibility, rather than the notion of sanity, must do the work of appraising the value of an actors’ behavior, and that must be done in light of the fact that responsible moral agents enjoy varying degrees of sanity.