This thesis examines Kantian conceptions of freedom. Beginning with Kant himself, I show how Kant’s response to Hume concerning the rational justification of causal judgements results in his claim that the sensible world is governed a priori by causal principles. Kant’s moral philosophy, however, requires a robust conception of freedom for moral agency to be possible. These two features leave Kant in an apparent contradiction, for it is unclear how we, as members of the physical, causal world, can be truly free if all events are governed by causal laws. I show that Kant’s solution to this contradiction lies in an important aspect of his transcendental idealism: the noumenal/phenomenal distinction. I argue, further, that his solution is problematic due to the fundamentally unknowable quality of the noumenal realm, wherein freedom is located. John McDowell’s Mind and World is introduced as an alternative to the extreme Kantian dualism between noumena and phenomena, while remaining within a broadly Kantian framework. Like Kant, McDowell locates our freedom in our ability to operate through reason, though unlike his predecessor, he situates “the space of reasons” within nature. This becomes possible by extending our conception of nature to include a “second nature”, thus making our initiation into the space of reasons—into the realm of freedom—a natural process. Remaining Kantian in spirit, however, McDowell’s account inherits a problematic Kantian feature. He maintains the distinction between two modes of intelligibility—between naturalistic and rational modes of explanation—thus leaving room for a hard-nosed naturalist to question the autonomy of the latter. I argue that Peter Strawson’s proposal in “Freedom and Resentment” is able to assuage this worry in McDowell’s otherwise plausible model. In it, Strawson provides an account of why the autonomy of rational explanations can never be undermined by purely naturalistic explanations, even in the face of a theoretical conviction in determinism. Strawson argues that our “personal reactive attitudes” (like gratitude and resentment)—attitudes that express our commitment to a moral life and are representative of our functioning within the space of reasons—could never be undermined by the truth of determinism, and this reveals the extent to which our conception of ourselves as rational agents is immune from assault by the determinist. The result is a compelling form of compatibilism that persuasively retains the space of reasons without appeal to Kantian noumenalism. / Thesis (Master, Philosophy) -- Queen's University, 2007-09-14 14:36:23.511

Reactive attitudes are distinctively moral emotions that occur when a moral harm has occurred. Recent studies in moral psychology suggest that our reactive attitudes may be influenced by factors extraneous to moral evaluation, such as hunger, sleep deprivation, and negative moods. I argue that these influences lead us to sanction unfairly. Even though reactive attitudes may be a natural response to perceived moral wrongdoing, we cannot justifiably inflict undeserved harm. However, if we can learn to recognize and eliminate the effects of these irrelevant influences, then we can use our reactive attitudes productively in holding others morally accountable.

Student Number : 9112588A - MA Dissertation - School of Social Sciences - Faculty of Humanities / There is a concern that causal determinism might render free-will impossible. I compare some different perspectives, namely Compatibilism, Incompatibilism, Libertarianism, and Hard Determinism, and conclude that Hard Determinism is correct—we lack free-will. To further bolster the case, I consider the work of Libet, who has found neuropsychological evidence that our brains non-consciously cause our actions, prior to our being aware of it. Thus we are also not choosing consciously. I then consider Dennett’s work on the role of the conscious self. I defend his model—of a fragmented self—which could not cause our actions. Finally I argue that many things that free-will purportedly provides, eg., justification for the penal system and reactive attitudes, can be reconstructed without free-will. I then end with some speculations about why people still want free-will.

A common conceptual framework depicts morality as an alien force commanding us from on high; in contrast, this dissertation presents a picture of morality that is deeply social. It is not an abstract morality that commands us, but we who place demands on each other. On this picture, we are equal participants in morality, rather than mere subjects of morality. This participation has fundamentally important implications for the shape and structure of morality; or so this dissertation argues. By way of introducing the work as a whole, I will here note some of the key facets of the social nature of morality that the dissertation develops. Our participation is primarily as enforcers, rather than followers, of morality. We hold people accountable to moral requirements through emotional responses like resentment, as well as actions and relations that follow from that attitude. As I argue, these emotions carry an important representational content, displaying the other person as having shown ill will. This ill will can be best understood as a disregard for relevant moral considerations that are available to the resented agent. Despite the negative tone of resentment, it is an aspect of being in community with each other. Someone who can be resented is a co-member of a community with us upon whom we can make demands and who can make demands upon us. We may not share community with some people regarding some issues, such as across religious divides, while still seeing them as people with whom we share at least some form of community, as within the system of basic liberal rights. There are people, as I discuss, who fail to be eligible for responsibility to even basic demands. With such people we have no community; they are to us like forces of nature, and the most dangerous of them are for us monsters. Though many endorse conceptions of community focused on shared experiences or values, I argue that such a notion of community is not appropriate for modern, diverse societies. In modern, particularly liberal, societies, we cannot expect to share religion, occupation, views of the good life, or the like, so these cannot constitute community among the members of society. A shared moral framework, however, provides a promising conception of community for diverse societies like our own. Our shared morality may thus be among the most important forms of community we can have on the large scale of modern society. That same diversity, however, raises problems for a shared morality. As I argue, our interpersonal moral demands will have to be justified to each other, given our different perspectives, and such justification may be difficult. I address both the nature of this interpersonal justification, as well as the difficulties of achieving it, within this dissertation. This dissertation shows that morality is social in yet another way. Focusing on justice, as a central part of the morality, I argue that the content of the principles to which we hold each other accountable itself emerges from our social institutions as those develop over time through our interactions. The diverse members of society must be able to share an understanding of their mutual expectations, but such members tend to disagree about how to interpret and apply moral values and principles. Social institutions, such as legal systems with courts to interpret law, can provide a common interpretation of expectations. If the rules that emerge from these institutions are justified to the members, then those rules may constitute justice within that society. This dissertation, then, presents a picture of morality that is social through and through. Morality is constructed within our social institutions, enforced interpersonally, restricted to what is mutually justified to society’s members, and ultimately constitutes one of our primary forms of community.

No description available.

This paper will introduce the theory of blame and demonstrate how it relates to self-blame. I will begin by first highlighting two competing definitions of blame. The first of these forms, upheld by two prominent philosophers, Thomas Scanlon and Linda Radzik, looks at blame as impairing relationships. Both philosophers study how wrongful actions cause impairments in relationships and argue that blame is utilized to the extent of that impairment. Reactive emotions, according to them, are simply a byproduct of blame and not of quintessential importance to the theory of blame. The second form of blame, presented by Susan Wolf and R. Jay Wallace, refutes the Impaired Relations Theory and, instead, studies the theory of blame in accordance with reactive emotions. These two philosophers contend that blame is the reactive attitudes one has, or should have, towards wrongful actions. These emotions are, therefore, required in order for an agent to be blamed. This paper will first thoroughly outline the differences between these two forms of blame. It will then introduce the notion of self-blame with respect to these four philosophers’ viewpoints and compare them to one another. It will ultimately conclude by revealing how the Reactive Attitudes Theory represents a more accurate account of self-blame.

In his 1962 paper “Freedom and Resentment," Peter Strawson attempts to reconcile incompatibilism and compatibilism about moral responsibility and determinism. First, I present the error committed by the proponents of both these traditional views, which Strawson diagnoses as the source of their standoff, and the remedy Strawson offers to avoid the conflict. Second, I reconstruct the two arguments Strawson offers for a theory of moral responsibility that is based on his proposed remedy. Third, I present and respond to two proposed problems for the Strawsonian theory: moral luck and revisionism. I conclude with a summary of my defense of Strawsonian “expressivism” about moral responsibility, and offer suggestions for further research.