Untitled Quiz

Moral luck occurs when a significant aspect of a person's actions depends on factors beyond their control, yet they are still judged morally.

The principle that people should be held accountable for their actions.

People should not be morally assessed for factors beyond their control.

Luck related to the outcomes of actions, rather than the intentions behind them.

Luck in one's character, inclinations, and capabilities.

Luck related to the circumstances and situations a person faces.

Luck related to factors influencing the causal chain leading to actions or decisions.

The challenge of reconciling the ideas that people are morally assessable, that people shouldn't be held responsible for things beyond their control, and that much about what people do isn't under their control.

The ability of a person to be the source of their actions, focusing on the origin of the action, rather than having options.

When someone or something played a role in causing an event, without necessarily being to blame.

Accountability for actions' moral quality; includes the potential for blame or praise. People in a moral community are entitled to treat you in specific ways based on your actions.

When a person accepts responsibility for actions and outcomes, especially from a moral perspective.

Free will is the ability to act differently; assessing choices at the moment of decision.

Free will is being the origin of actions; not necessarily about alternative choices.

Describes the actions where laws are applied, while moral responsibility deals with moral judgement.

Moral emotions(like anger) are responses to and related to someone's potential moral responsibility.

Moral responsibility depends on having the ability to choose different actions.

The belief that free will and determinism are compatible.

The belief that free will is incompatible with determinism.

Emotions like anger, resentment, or forgiveness, in response to another's actions.

Perspective of considering another person as equally morally responsible.

Perspective of considering someone based on their medical/psychological status.

The idea that all events, including human actions, are predetermined.

According to Strawson, holding someone responsible involves not only their ability to choose differently but also our emotional reactions to their actions. These reactions, like anger or gratitude, influence our judgments about responsibility and reflect our understanding of them as rational beings.

Exemptions occur when someone is deemed not fully accountable because they lack the necessary capacity, such as young children or individuals with certain mental disabilities. These individuals are considered outside the scope of full moral responsibility.

Determinism argues that all events, including human actions, are predetermined. However, Strawson argues determinism does not excuse responsibility, as sane adults are expected to act with good will towards others.

The objective attitude treats individuals as objects, devoid of moral worth or agency. This perspective removes emotional judgments and focuses solely on objective factors.

Watson argues that Strawson's theory is incomplete. Reactive attitudes (emotional responses) are influenced not only by the individual's intentions but also by our background beliefs about them. These contextual beliefs can impact our judgments of responsibility.

Frankfurt proposes that we are truly responsible only for actions that stem from our real self, our deepest desires and values. This 'real self' is responsible for our actions when we act according to our true intentions.

1st-order desires are basic desires for specific things or actions, while 2nd-order desires are desires about our own desires. Our will aligns with effective 1st-order desires, those that motivate us.

Frankfurt's theory suggests that true freedom of will comes from acting on our deepest desires, our 'real self.' This implies that actions aligned with our core values are truly free and reflect our authentic self.

The concept that even slight changes in the initial conditions of complex systems like the brain can lead to vastly different outcomes.

The idea that events at a quantum level are unpredictable and not fully determined by prior causes.

The process where small, unpredictable factors at the quantum level can influence larger systems, like the firing of neurons in the brain.

The argument that chaos theory allows for a form of free will by making brain processes sensitive to small, unpredictable factors.

The presence of multiple desires or goals within a person, creating internal conflict and making decisions more unpredictable.

The view that free will doesn't exist, suggesting that all actions are determined by prior events, leaving no room for genuine choice.

The argument that incompatibilism is true because it relies on a specific interpretation of the word 'can,' which implies a special kind of ability.

This theory explains how someone possesses an ability at a specific time by considering their current qualities and future actions. It requires having the necessary qualities, choosing to act, and maintaining those qualities to produce the desired outcome.

For someone 'S' to have the ability to do something 'X' at a specific time 't', they must possess certain intrinsic qualities 'B'. If 'S' chooses to do 'X' and maintains those qualities, their choice and qualities will directly lead to the successful completion of 'X' later.

Actions where our choices are not fully determined by our past circumstances or external factors. They involve a conflict between desires or values, and moments of instability or indeterminacy are present.

To be truly responsible for an action, you need to be responsible for all the factors that caused it. You must be responsible for all the motives and causes that led to the action.

Incompatibilism doesn't require that every action be undetermined. It only needs indeterminism for self-forming actions, where we make critical choices shaped by our own internal conflicts.