首页> 外文期刊>Ethical Theory and Moral Practice >Saving Strawson: Evil and Strawsonian Accounts of Moral Responsibility
【24h】

Saving Strawson: Evil and Strawsonian Accounts of Moral Responsibility

机译:拯救斯特劳森:道德责任的邪恶和斯特劳森主义叙述

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Almost everyone allows that conditions can obtain that exempt agents from moral responsibility—that someone is not a morally responsible agent if certain conditions obtain. In his seminal “Freedom and Resentment,” Peter Strawson denies that the truth of determinism globally exempts agents from moral responsibility. As has been noted elsewhere, Strawson appears committed to the surprising thesis that being an evil person is an exempting condition. Less often noted is the fact that various Strawsonians—philosophers sympathetic with Strawson’s account of moral responsibility—at least appear to have difficulty incorporating evil persons into their accounts of moral responsibility. In what follows, I argue that Strawson is not committed to supposing that being evil is an exempting condition—at least, that he can allow that evil persons are morally responsible agents.
机译:几乎每个人都允许条件可以使代理人免于承担道德责任-如果获得某些条件,则某人不是道德责任代理。彼得·斯特劳森(Peter Strawson)在开创性的“自由与怨恨”中否认了决定论的真相在全球范围内免除了代理人的道德责任。正如其他地方所指出的那样,斯特劳森似乎致力于令人惊讶的论点,即成为邪恶的人是免除条件。鲜为人知的事实是,各种斯特劳森主义者(同情斯特劳森对道德责任的描述的哲学家)至少似乎很难将邪恶的人纳入他们的道德责任的描述。在下文中,我认为斯特劳森并不致力于假设邪恶是一种豁免条件,至少,他可以允许邪恶者在道德上负责任。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号