Responsibility Skeptics Should Be More Skeptical

IF 1.7 2区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1017/can.2023.20
Aarthy Vaidyanathan
{"title":"Responsibility Skeptics Should Be More Skeptical","authors":"Aarthy Vaidyanathan","doi":"10.1017/can.2023.20","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Menges (2022) seeks to identify the kind of blame that should be at issue in debates between skeptics and anti-skeptics about responsibility. Menges argues that such blame is constituted by responses that the target has a claim against, and by the blamer’s thought that they have forfeited this claim due to their bad action and state while engaged in that action. I identify a class of blame responses that Menges mistakenly excludes and offer an alternative, more general, account in which the distinctive feature of controversial blame isn’t claim forfeiture, but the defeat of reasons grounded in the target’s interests.","PeriodicalId":51573,"journal":{"name":"CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/can.2023.20","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Menges (2022) seeks to identify the kind of blame that should be at issue in debates between skeptics and anti-skeptics about responsibility. Menges argues that such blame is constituted by responses that the target has a claim against, and by the blamer’s thought that they have forfeited this claim due to their bad action and state while engaged in that action. I identify a class of blame responses that Menges mistakenly excludes and offer an alternative, more general, account in which the distinctive feature of controversial blame isn’t claim forfeiture, but the defeat of reasons grounded in the target’s interests.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
责任怀疑论者应该更加怀疑
蒙格斯(2022)试图确定在怀疑论者和反怀疑论者之间关于责任的辩论中应该讨论的责任类型。蒙格斯认为,这种指责是由被指责者的回应构成的,而被指责者认为,由于他们的不良行为和不良状态,他们已经丧失了这种要求。我找出了一类被蒙格斯错误地排除在外的指责回应,并提供了另一种更一般的解释,其中有争议的指责的显著特征不是索赔丧失,而是基于目标利益的理由的失败。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
11.10%
发文量
16
期刊最新文献
Frege and the Fundamental Abstraction Roderick Chisholm’s Philosophical Cartoons No Peeking: Peer Review and Presumptive Blinding Worlds and Eyeglasses: Cavendish’s Blazing World in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, The Black Dossier What Might Be in the Pure Business of Being True?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1