Are Our Moral Responsibility Practices Justified? Wittgenstein, Strawson and Justification in ‘Freedom and Resentment’ (, British Journal for the History of . Strawson made a contribution to the free will versus determinism discussions by pointing out that whatever the deep metaphysical . Freedom and Resentment. compatibilist account of moral responsibility, the themes covered in “Freedom and. Resentment” extend beyond the free will debate. Strawson.

Author: Gull Mikadal
Country: Thailand
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Software
Published (Last): 28 April 2004
Pages: 239
PDF File Size: 4.10 Mb
ePub File Size: 15.21 Mb
ISBN: 268-9-98341-941-4
Downloads: 81523
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Mosida

Strawson’s, rather than Austin’s account, became the focus of debate. To regard such agents as worthy of one of these reactions is to regard them as responsible for what they have done or left undone.

Many thought that persons could not be free and morally responsible if such an explanation of human action turned out to be true. Open access to the SEP is made possible by a world-wide funding initiative.

Strawson tries to explain or elucidate the central concepts of formal logic.

Peter F. Strawson

Strawson proposes the following model of latching onto an identifying reference. Truth The other very important debate that Strawson was involved in the early resenntment was that with Austin about truth. That is, most have thought that if an agent were to genuinely merit praise or blame for something, then he would need to exercise a special form of control over that thing e. The remaining three target Strawson’s support of the reactive attitude, and of these, one succeeds, and the others fail.

However, reseentment well as being an original contribution to epistemology the book presents an approach to ontology which deserves to be called Oxonian, because it has been popular in Oxford.

The rejection of Transcendental Idealism requires Strawson to scrutinize Kant’s arguments for it, and he very carefully and sympathetically analyses, and of course rejects, Kant’s arguments about space and time, and geometry, and also the argument, presented in the Antinomies, that transcendental realism generates contradictions.

The first will address both an analysis from the philosophy of language, ways of talking about the human and the conceptual equipment that each person has, purposely of a reading about P. Western ethical theory typically accepts equality and symmetry as conditions of disentangling resentment; yet this task requires the asymmetrical recognition of others.

Incompatibilists, in particular, seem largely unpersuaded and so have continued to assume a more or less traditional merit-based conception of moral responsibility as the basis for dtrawson theorizing. Aristotle — BCE seems to have been the first to construct a theory of moral responsibility.


Peter F. Strawson, Freedom and resentment – PhilPapers

Given the above, Strawson contends that it is pointless abd ask whether the practice of holding responsible can be rationally justified if determinism wtrawson true. He is right about the second point but not, I suspect, about the first. His argument involves a comparison between three conceptions of such thought.

In the first part of it Strawson presents a revised version of his account of the normal subject-predicate distinction, and also presents a partial theory of one particular case of subject expressions, namely proper names.

Nevertheless, his enduring influence is reflected in the ongoing rich discussion of the place and role of the reactive attitudes in human life and in the way contemporary theorists situate their models of responsibility in relation to the accountability model, which he helped to define.

He wrote most notably about the philosophy of language, metaphysics, epistemology and the history of philosophy, especially Kant. I offered a number Michael Zimmerman has recently argued against the twofold Strawsonian claim that there can be no moral responsibility without a moral community and that, as a result, moral responsibility is essentially interpersonal.

Strawson had given introductory lectures once he became a professor, and the lectures became this book. A consequence of this generality, Strawson suggests, is that the methods needed for settling the questions are different in kind from those employed in debating less abstract conceptual or philosophical questions. That is no doubt a recommendation but not the largest recommendation of this splendidly rich piece of philosophy.

The remainder of Aristotle’s discussion is devoted to spelling out the conditions under which it is appropriate to hold a moral agent blameworthy or praiseworthy for some particular action or trait. For example, one who encounters a car accident may be regarded as worthy of praise for having saved a child from inside the burning car, or alternatively, one may be regarded as worthy of blame for not having used one’s mobile phone to call for help.

If this is the proper interpretation of the phenomenon, then it is evidence that theoretical considerations, steawson the truth of determinism, could in fact dislodge the reactive attitudes Nagel Strawson was married and had four children. Strawson is then in a position to answer his fundamental question as to whether there is a basic category of items of reference.


Freedom and Resentment

I discuss via a digression on F. When a stradson performs or fails to perform a morally significant action, we sometimes think that a particular kind of response is warranted.

Those accepting the consequentialist conception of moral responsibility, on the other hand, have traditionally contended that determinism poses no threat to moral responsibility since praising and blaming could still be an effective means of influencing another’s behavior, even in a deterministic world.

According to Strawson, Russell infers from that to the conclusion that the semantic role of the apparent subject expression in such sentences i.

Moral ResponsibilityIthaca: It is also true that issues to do with the subject-predicate distinction appeal to fewer people than do the issues focused on in the early part. Resentmemt who view persons in this way have wondered whether their special status is threatened if certain other claims about our universe are true.

Strawson then looks at the notion of form and of proof systems. As Watson points out, it may make no sense to hold the agent responsible for the action in question, since it may not be the sort of thing for which they are accountable to us. The subsequent discussion occasioned by their debate primarily concerned some issues about the degree to which Strawson’s criticisms as a whole were fair to Austin, and also whether the approach to truth that Strawson himself favoured was adequate.

Peter Strawson Freedom and Resentment

The Bounds of Sense 7. Hegel Martin Heidegger Heraclitus R. Shame and NecessityLos Angeles: Clarendon Press Irwin, Terrance, ed. Strawson’s aim, generated, in part, by his reflections on the correct treatment of definite descriptions, is to say what formal logic is. For those holding the merit view, it is a judgment that the agent has exercised the requisite fredom of metaphysical control, e.

After presenting this way of understanding expectations, their relationship with responsibility is analyzed, having in mind the mentioned hypothesis. Strawson—, —; Honderich This attitude of Strawson’s placed him in opposition to a movement of thought that swept through Oxford’s younger philosophers during the time he was a professor.