Epistemic Concerns in the Second-Person Perspective for the Moral Responsibility
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26512/rfmc.v9i1.41033Keywords:
Second Person; Moral Responsibility; e Epistemic Condition.Abstract
The conditions under which an agent can be considered morally responsible for her actions raise epistemic concerns like, for instance, whether an agent needs to know what she is doing, and if she must know the moral meaning of what she’s doing to be hold responsible. We’ll see that these epistemic concerns appear in theories which focus on the second-person perspective. The concern about the question whether the agent knows what she does is less controversial, but the one about the knowledge of the moral meaning generates different answers according to each theory. Furthermore, it is important to examine either, if some epistemic concern constitutes a condition independent from other conditions for the agent, in the production of the action, be morally responsible, or if the epistemic concerns are already addressed in the conditions to produce the action. The independency is defended by Mele, and we agree with him on that score.
Downloads
References
DALL’AGNOL, D. “Morality from the second-person standpoint”.ethic@ - An International Journal for Moral Philosophy,2006, v. 5, n. 2, p. 121–125.
DARWALL, S.The second-person standpoint: morality, respect, and accountability. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,2006.
DARWALL, S. “Precis: the second-person standpoint”.Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 2010, v. 81, n. 1, p.216–228.
DAVIDSON, D. “Actions, reasons, and causes”.The Journal of Philosophy, 1963, v. 60, n. 23, p. 685-700, 1963.
FRANKFURT, H. G. “Alternate possibilities and moral responsibility”.The Journal of Philosophy, 1969, v. 66, n. 23, p.829-839.
GOLDMAN, A. I. “The individuation of action".The Journal of Philosophy, 1971, v. 68, n. 21, p. 761-774.
HARMAN, E. “Does moral ignorance exculpate?”Ratio, 2011, v. 24, n. 4, p. 443–468.
FISCHER, J. M.My way: essays on moral responsibility. Oxford: New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
FISCHER, J. M.; RAVIZZA, M.Responsibility and control: a theory of moral responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.MELE, A. “Moral responsibility for actions: Epistemic and freedom conditions”.Philosophical Explorations, 2010, v. 13,n. 2, p. 101–111.
RUDY-HILLER, F. “The epistemic condition for moral responsibility”. In: ZALTA, E. (Org.) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2018. Disponível em: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/moral-responsibility-epistemic/. Acesso em: 9 fev. 2021.
STRAWSON, P. “Freedom and resentment”.Proceedings of the British Academy, 1962, v. 48, p. 1–25.
TALBERT, M. “Unwitting wrongdoers and the role of moral disagreement in blame”. In: SHOEMAKER, D. (Org.)OxfordStudies in Agency and Responsibility Volume 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. p. 225–245.
ZIMMERMAN, M. J. “Peels on ignorance as a moral excuse”. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 2021, v. 26, n.4, p. 624–632.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Journal of Modern and Contemporary Philosophy
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright for articles published in this journal is retained by the authors, with first publication rights granted to the journal. By virtue of their appearance in this open access journal, articles are free to use, with proper attribution, in educational and other non-commercial settings.