z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Is Moral Responsibility Essentially Interpersonal? A Reply to Zimmerman
Author(s) -
Benjamin De Mesel
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
the journal of ethics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.255
H-Index - 36
eISSN - 1572-8609
pISSN - 1382-4554
DOI - 10.1007/s10892-017-9251-3
Subject(s) - interpretation (philosophy) , interpersonal communication , moral responsibility , moral disengagement , psychology , social psychology , epistemology , philosophy , linguistics
According to Michael Zimmerman, no interpretation of the idea that moral responsibility is essentially interpersonal captures a significant truth. He raises several worries about the Strawsonian view that moral responsibility consists in susceptibility to the reactive attitudes and claims that this view at best supports only an etiolated interpretation of the idea that moral responsibility is essentially interpersonal. He outlines three problems. First, the existence of self-reactive attitudes may be incompatible with the interpersonal nature of moral responsibility. Secondly, Zimmerman questions the significance of the interpersonal nature of moral responsibility, according to the Strawsonian view. Thirdly, he argues that that view may be taken to suggest the wrong kind of priority relation between ‘P is morally responsible’ and ‘it is appropriate to adopt some reactive attitude toward P’. I discuss each of these problems in turn and conclude that Strawsonians can respond to all three problems raised by Zimmerman. The Strawsonian view supports a significant interpretation of the idea that moral responsibility is essentially interpersonal.status: publishe

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom