Publicação
Robustness and Up-to-us-ness
| dc.contributor.author | Kittle, Simon | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2017-07-12T22:54:34Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2017-07-12T22:54:34Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2017-05 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Frankfurt-style cases purport to show that an agent can be morally responsible for an action despite not having any alternatives. Some critics have responded by highlighting various alternatives that remain in the cases presented, while Frankfurtians have objected that such alternatives are typically not capable of grounding responsibility. In this essay I address the recent suggestion by Seth Shabo that only alternatives associated with the ‘up to us’ locution ground moral responsibility. I distinguish a number of kinds of ability, suggest which kinds of abilities ground the truth of the ‘up to us’ locution, and outline how these distinctions apply to the indeterministic buffer cases. | pt_PT |
| dc.description.version | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion | pt_PT |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0873-626X | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10451/28336 | |
| dc.language.iso | eng | pt_PT |
| dc.peerreviewed | yes | pt_PT |
| dc.publisher | Universidade de Lisboa, Faculdade de Letras, Centro de Filosofia | pt_PT |
| dc.relation.publisherversion | www.disputatio.com | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Free will | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Control | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | alternative possibilities | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Frankfurt-style cases | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | up to us | pt_PT |
| dc.title | Robustness and Up-to-us-ness | pt_PT |
| dc.type | journal article | |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| oaire.citation.endPage | 57 | pt_PT |
| oaire.citation.issue | 44 | pt_PT |
| oaire.citation.startPage | 35 | pt_PT |
| oaire.citation.title | Disputatio | pt_PT |
| oaire.citation.volume | IX | pt_PT |
| rcaap.rights | openAccess | pt_PT |
| rcaap.type | article | pt_PT |