Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T18:34:08.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constitutive Moral Luck and Strawson's Argument for the Impossibility of Moral Responsibility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 November 2018

ROBERT J. HARTMAN
ROBERT J. HARTMAN*
Affiliation:
UNIVERSITY OF [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Galen Strawson's Basic Argument is that because self-creation is required to be truly morally responsible and self-creation is impossible, it is impossible to be truly morally responsible for anything. I contend that the Basic Argument is unpersuasive and unsound. First, I argue that the moral luck debate shows that the self-creation requirement appears to be contradicted and supported by various parts of our commonsense ideas about true moral responsibility, and that this ambivalence undermines the only reason that Strawson gives for the self-creation requirement. Second, I argue that the self-creation requirement is so demanding that either it is an implausible requirement for a species of true moral responsibility that we take ourselves to have or it is a plausible requirement of a species of true moral responsibility that we have never taken ourselves to have. Third, I explain that Strawson overgeneralizes from instances of constitutive luck that obviously undermine true moral responsibility to all kinds of constitutive luck.

Keywords

moral luckfree willmoral responsibilityresponsibility skepticismGalen Strawson
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the American Philosophical Association , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , Summer 2018 , pp. 165 - 183
Copyright
Copyright © American Philosophical Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I am grateful to Godehard Brüntrup, Daniel Haas, Luke Henderson, Andrew Khoury, Benjamin Matheson, Sean McAleer, Al Mele, Per Milam, Christian Munthe, Justin Noia, Paul Russell, Philipp Schwind, Michael Scoville, Jeremy Skrzypek, András Szigeti, Matt Talbert, and two anonymous referees for comments or conversations about the ideas in this paper. I am especially grateful to Kristin Mickelson for many conversations about the Basic Argument. I thank audiences for questions and comments at the Practical Philosophy Seminar at the University of Gothenburg, the Munich School of Philosophy Department Colloquium, the University of Zurich Department Colloquium, and the Central Division of the American Philosophical Association.

References

Clarke, Randolph. (1997) ‘On the Possibility of Rational Free Action’. Philosophical Studies, 88, 37–57.Google Scholar
Clarke, Randolph. (2005) ‘On an Argument for the Impossibility of Moral Responsibility’. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 29, 13–24.Google Scholar
Coffman, E. J. (2015) Luck: Its Nature and Significance for Human Knowledge and Agency. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Corabi, Joseph. (2017) ‘Two Arguments for Impossibilism and Why It isn't Impossible to Refute Them’. Philosophia, 45, 569–84.Google Scholar
Ciurria, Michelle. (2014) ‘The Case of JoJo and Our Pretheoretical Intuitions: An Externalist Interpretation’. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 5, 265–76.Google Scholar
Cyr, Taylor C. (Forthcoming) ‘Moral Responsibility, Luck, and Compatibilism’. Erkenntnis.Google Scholar
Faraci, David, and Shoemaker, David. (2010) ‘Insanity, Deep Selves, and Moral Responsibility: The Case of JoJo’. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1, 319–32.Google Scholar
Faraci, David, and Shoemaker, David. (2014) ‘Huck Vs. JoJo: Moral Ignorance and the (A)Symmetry of Praise and Blame’. In Knobe, Joshua, Lombrozo, Tania, and Nichols, Shaun (eds.), Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy, vol. 1 (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 7–27.Google Scholar
Fischer, John Martin. (2006) ‘The Cards That Are Dealt You’. Journal of Ethics, 10, 107–29.Google Scholar
Fischer, John Martin, and Ravizza, Mark. (1998) Responsibility and Control: A Theory of Moral Responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, John Martin, and Tognazzini, Neal. (2011) ‘The Physiognomy of Responsibility’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 82, 381–417.Google Scholar
Franklin, Christopher. (2018) A Minimal Libertarianism: Free Will and the Promise of Reduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greco, John. (1995) ‘A Second Paradox Concerning Responsibility and Luck’. Metaphilosophy, 26, 81–96.Google Scholar
Hart, Benjamin. (2012) ‘Why We Are Lucky To Be In Control: A Defense of the Compatibility of Luck and Responsibility’. Ph.D. diss., St. Louis University.Google Scholar
Hartman, Robert J. (2017) In Defense of Moral Luck: Why Luck Often Affects Praiseworthiness and Blameworthiness. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hartman, Robert J. (Unpublished manuscript a) ‘Against the Character Response to the Problem of Moral Luck’.Google Scholar
Hartman, Robert J. (Unpublished manuscript b) ‘Moral Luck and the Unfairness of Morality’.Google Scholar
Hartman, Robert J. (Unpublished manuscript c) ‘Moral Luck in Kant's Moral Philosophy?’Google Scholar
Henderson, Luke. (2014) ‘Character Development and Heaven’. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 76, 319–30.Google Scholar
Hendrickson, Noel. (2007) ‘Improving the Metaphysical Argument Against Free Will’. Philosophical Papers, 36, 271–94.Google Scholar
Hurley, Susan L. (2000) ‘Is Responsibility Essentially Impossible?’ Philosophical Studies, 99, 229–68.Google Scholar
Istvan, Michael Anthony Jr. (2011) ‘Concerning the Resilience of Galen Strawson's Basic Argument’. Philosophical Studies, 155, 399–420.Google Scholar
Kane, Robert. (1996) The Significance of Free Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kane, Robert. (2007) ‘Libertarianism’. In Fischer, John Martin, Kane, Robert, Pereboom, Derk, and Vargas, Manual (eds.), Four Views on Free Will (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 5–43.Google Scholar
Kershnar, Stephen. (2015) ‘Moral Responsibility and Foundationalism’. Philosophia, 43, 381–402.Google Scholar
Kment, Boris. (2017) ‘Free Will and Ultimate Explanation’. Philosophical Issues, 27, 114–30.Google Scholar
Levy, Neil. (2011) Hard Luck: How Luck Undermines Freedom and Moral Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mason, Elinor. (2015) ‘Moral Ignorance and Blameworthiness’. Philosophical Studies, 172, 3037–57.Google Scholar
McKenna, Michael. (2008) ‘Ultimacy and Sweet Jane’. In Trakakis, Nick and Cohen, Daniel (eds.), Essays on Free Will and Moral Responsibility (Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing), 186–208.Google Scholar
Mele, Alfred. (1995) Autonomous Agents: From Self-Control to Autonomy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mele, Alfred. (2006) Free Will and Luck. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mele, Alfred. (2013) ‘Moral Responsibility and the Continuation Problem’. Philosophical Studies, 162, 237–55.Google Scholar
Mickelson, Kristin. (2015) ‘The Zygote Argument is Invalid: Now What?’ Philosophical Studies, 172, 2911–29.Google Scholar
Mickelson, Kristin. (2017) ‘The Manipulation Argument’. In Griffith, Meghan, Timpe, Kevin, and Levy, Neil (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Free Will (New York: Routledge), 166–78.Google Scholar
Nagel, Thomas. (1979) ‘Moral Luck’. In Nagel, Mortal Questions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 24–38.Google Scholar
Nagel, Thomas. (1986) The View from Nowhere. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
O'Connor, Timothy. (2011) ‘Agent Causal Theories of Freedom’. In Kane, Robert (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Free Will, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 309–28.Google Scholar
Peels, Rik. (2017) Responsible Belief: A Theory in Ethics and Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pereboom, Derk. (2001) Living without Free Will. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, Paul. (2008) ‘Free Will, Art, and Morality’. The Journal of Ethics, 12, 307–25.Google Scholar
Russell, Paul. (2017) The Limits of Free Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shoemaker, David. (2015) Responsibility from the Margins. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smilansky, Saul. (2000) Free Will and Illusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Strawson, Galen. (1994) ‘The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility’. Philosophical Studies, 75, 5–24.Google Scholar
Strawson, Galen. (2000) ‘The Unhelpfulness of Indeterminism’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 60, 149–55.Google Scholar
Strawson, Galen. (2002) ‘The Bounds of Freedom’. In Kane, Robert (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Free Will, 1st ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 158–77.Google Scholar
Strawson, Galen. ([1986] 2010) Freedom and Belief. Revised ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Strawson, Galen. (2011) ‘Free Will’. In Craig, Edward (ed.), The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Talbert, Matthew. (2015) Moral Responsibility: An Introduction. Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Thomson, Judith Jarvis. (1989) ‘Morality and Bad Luck’. Metaphilosophy, 20, 203–21.Google Scholar
Tucker, Chris. (2007) ‘Agent Causation and the Alleged Impossibility of Rational Free Action’. Erkenntnis, 67, 17–27.Google Scholar
Wallace, R. Jay. (1994) Responsibility and the Moral Sentiments. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Waller, Bruce N. (2011) Against Moral Responsibility. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Watson, Gary. (1993) ‘Responsibility and the Limits of Evil: Variations on a Strawsonian Theme’. In Fischer, John Martin and Ravizza, Mark (eds.), Perspectives on Moral Responsibility (Ithaca: Cornell University Press), 119–50.Google Scholar
Williams, Bernard. (1981) ‘Moral Luck’. In Williams, , Moral Luck: Philosophical Papers, 1973–1980 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 20–39.Google Scholar
Williams, Bernard. (1985) Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wolf, Susan. (1987) ‘Sanity and the Metaphysics of Responsibility’. In Schoeman, Ferdinand (ed.), Responsibility, Character, and the Emotions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 46–62.Google Scholar
Wolf, Susan. (1990) Freedom within Reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wolf, Susan. (2011) ‘Blame, Italian Style’. In Wallace, R. Jay, Kumar, Rahul, and Freeman, Samuel (eds.), Reasons and Recognition: Essays on the Philosophy of T. M. Scanlon (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 332–47.Google Scholar
Wolf, Susan. (2015) ‘Character and Responsibility’. Journal of Philosophy, 112, 356–72.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, Michael J. (1987) ‘Luck and Moral Responsibility’. Ethics, 97, 374–86.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, Michael J. (2002) ‘Taking Luck Seriously’. The Journal of Philosophy, 99, 553–76.Google Scholar