Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Conversation and Responsibility$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Michael McKenna

Print publication date: 2012

Print ISBN-13: 9780199740031

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2012

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199740031.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2019. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy).date: 20 June 2019

Reorienting Strawson's Theory of Moral Responsibility

Reorienting Strawson's Theory of Moral Responsibility

(p.31) 2 Reorienting Strawson's Theory of Moral Responsibility
Conversation and Responsibility

Michael McKenna

Oxford University Press

P. F. Strawson's theory of moral responsibility is assumed to involve three theses. First, morally responsibility is interpersonal because the nature of being responsible is essentially linked to the practices and norms of holding responsible. Second, holding responsible is to be understood by reference to morally reactive attitudes, which are a collection of emotions that are elicited in response to the perceived quality of will in the behavior of a morally responsible agent. Third, holding responsible is more fundamental or basic than being responsible, and so the latter should be explained in terms of the former. In this chapter, the first two Strawsonian theses are advanced, while the third is rejected. The first two are developed in a manner consistent with there being facts about being responsible and about the propriety of holding responsible. These interpersonal features of the theory are explained by comparison with a ledger theory of responsibility whereby being morally responsible is simply a matter of facts about an agent obtaining independently of considerations of holding morally responsible. The third is rejected in favor of explicating being and holding responsible as mutually dependent such that neither is metaphysically more basic than the other.

Keywords:   P.F. Strawson, interpersonal theory, ledger theory, reactive attitudes, Gary Watson, R. Jay Wallace, normative interpretation, extreme metaphysical interpretation, modest metaphysical interpretation

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .