The Basic Argument and Modest Moral Responsibility

2017 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 156-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Justin Coates
Keyword(s):  
Moral Responsibility ◽  
Basic Argument

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

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 165-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
ROBERT J. HARTMAN
Keyword(s):  
Moral Responsibility ◽  
Moral Luck ◽  
The Self ◽  
Basic Argument ◽  
Constitutive Luck

AbstractGalen 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.

TELEVISI BESERTA REALITAS NILAI MEDIANYA

DeKaVe ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Arief Agung Suwasono
Keyword(s):  
Moral Responsibility ◽  
Social Solidarity ◽  
Social Commitment

Television is a medium that delivers meaning through various type of text television conveys information that promotes moral responsibility and social solidarity. In spite of the fact that television is one of capitalism product, its programs can generate social commitment and solidarity reflecting human moral values.Keyword : Television, Fetisme

Judgments of Moral Responsibility in Tissue Donation Cases

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
James R. Beebe
Keyword(s):  
Moral Responsibility ◽  
Significant Role ◽  
Primary Factor ◽  
Tissue Donation ◽  
Potential Donor ◽  
Sperm Donor ◽  
Perceived Burden ◽  
Related Individuals ◽  
Unique Ability

If a person requires a tissue donation in order to survive, many philosophers argue that whatever moral responsibility a biological relative may have to donate to the person in need will be grounded at least partially, if not entirely, in the biological relations the potential donor bears to the recipient. Such views tend to ignore the role played by a potential donor’s unique ability to help the person in need and the perceived burden of the donation type in underwriting such judgments. If, for example, a sperm donor is judged to have a significant moral responsibility to donate tissue to a child conceived with his sperm, we argue that such judgments will largely be grounded in the presumed unique ability of the sperm donor to help the child due to the compatibility of his tissues with those of the recipient. In this paper, we report the results of two main studies and three supplementary studies designed to investigate the comparative roles that biological relatedness, unique ability to help, and donation burden play in generating judgments of moral responsibility in tissue donation cases. We found that the primary factor driving individuals’ judgments about the moral responsibility of a potential donor to donate tissue to someone in need was the degree to which a donor was in a unique ability to help. We observed no significant role for biological relatedness as such. Biologically related individuals were deemed to have a significant moral responsibility to donate tissue only when they are one of a small number of people who have a relatively unique capacity to help. We also found that people are less inclined to think individuals have a moral responsibility to donate tissue when the donation is more costly to make. We bring these results into dialogue with contemporary disputes concerning the ethics of tissue donation.

Judgments of moral responsibility in tissue donation cases

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
James R. Beebe
Keyword(s):  
Moral Responsibility ◽  
Tissue Donation ◽  
Potential Donor ◽  
Sperm Donor ◽  
Biological Relationship ◽  
Related Individuals ◽  
Unique Ability

If a person requires an organ or tissue donation to survive, many philosophers argue that whatever moral responsibility a biological relative may have to donate to the person in need will be grounded at least partially, if not entirely, in biological relations the potential donor bears to the recipient. We contend that such views ignore the role that a potential donor’s unique ability to help the person in need plays in underwriting such judgments. If, for example, a sperm donor is judged to have a significant moral responsibility to donate tissue to a child conceived with his sperm, we think this will not be due to the fact that the donor stands in a close biological relationship to the recipient. Rather, we think such judgments will largely be grounded in the presumed unique ability of the sperm donor to help the child due to the compatibility of his tissues and organs with those of the recipient. In this paper, we report the results of two studies designed to investigate the comparative roles that biological relatedness and unique ability play in generating judgments of moral responsibility in tissue donation cases. We found that biologically related individuals are deemed to have a significant moral responsibility to donate tissue only when they are one of a small number of people who have the capacity to help.

Parables of Freedom and Necessity

1996 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-58
Author(s):  
Abdelwahab M. Elmessiri
Keyword(s):  
Moral Responsibility ◽  
Human Freedom ◽  
Modern Time ◽  
Literary Works ◽  
Thematic Relations ◽  
Narrative Poem

EpilogueGeoffrey Chaucer’s ‘The Frankeleyn’s Tale” and Bertold Brecht’sThe Exception and the Rule seem to have very little in common. Chaucer’smedieval narrative poem tries to follow the norms of its genre andfulfiil the reader’s expectations, whereas Brecht’s modernist experimentalplay violates many of the rules of drama laid down by Aristotle and otherclassical critics. It deliberately shocks the reader out of any facile identificationwith the characters as well as any willing suspension of disbelief.But despite their many obvious differences, this study argues that theirsimilarities are quite relevant and significant. Both works deal with thethemes of human freedom, moral responsibility, and ability to transcend.These are among the major themes of literature throughout time-butthey have acquired particular poignancy in our modern time with the riseand gradual unfolding of what I term the “Paradigmatic sequence of secularization.”Since the terms “paradigm” and “secularism” are alreadyquite problematic, and to talk of “a paradigmatic sequence of secularization”is even more so, some kind of clarification and even redefinition isin order.ParadigmsWhen a critic singles out two literary works for comparison, thechoice is not guided by some universally established objective rules, butrather dictated by a certain set of assumptions, norms, criteria, biases, andso on. When he/she engages in the critical act itself, pointing out structuraland thematic relations (of similarity and dissimilarity), he/she does ...

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document