Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MATT KING
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Matt King 2023
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2022950586
ISBN 978–0–19–288359–9
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192883599.001.0001
Printed and bound by
CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
Contents
Preface vii
Introduction: A General Theory of Responsibility 1
1. The Basic Responsibility Relation 20
2. Basic Agency 36
3. Basic Blame and Basic Praise 69
4. Basic Desert 98
5. Beyond Basic Responsibility 125
Conclusion: Odds and Ends 154
References 175
Index 183
Preface
I’m the sort of reader who likes a good preface to an academic book. I’m
mostly intrigued by the autobiographical history behind the work or
behind-the-scenes details regarding how it took shape. I also confess to
having scanned quite a few to see if my name was mentioned. That said,
if prefaces aren’t for you, I won’t take offense if you skip this part. I’ll start
with some background on how I came to write this book, and then I’ll
thank some folks. (In the lists below, I go alphabetically, to help others
find their names.)
The main idea of this book first took shape way back in graduate school.
Like many who think and write about responsibility, I was immediately
animated reading Peter Strawson’s “Freedom and Resentment.” I had
started out as a political philosopher, thinking largely about issues of
political legitimacy. But I soon found myself thinking about our ordinary
practices of holding each other responsible, especially Strawson’s method-
ology of looking to when it would be inappropriate to hold others respon-
sible as a means to uncovering the conditions on being responsible.
I couldn’t help noticing that our ordinary practices extend well beyond
moral cases exhibiting good and ill will toward others, and I was struck by
the many parallels I saw across domains. I came to believe that non-moral
cases of responsibility were as theoretically significant as the moral ones.
This led me toward a project much in Strawson’s spirit, I suppose, but with
a very different structure in the end. A dissertation followed, defending a
compatibilist account of responsibility, using many of those same observa-
tions of symmetry. But, as with many dissertations, the discussion was a bit
programmatic, and it certainly was a bit too full of itself.
In subsequent years, I was fortunate to successfully publish work on a
number of topics regarding responsibility. However, the broader project
I had begun in the dissertation didn’t really figure directly into any of it.
It was still there in my thinking, of course, it was just operating in the
background in ways that didn’t affect those arguments (I hope). So,
viii
I have been thinking about responsibility for almost twenty years, and it
has taken that long for me to develop that basic view into something
presentable. If you are one of the six people who read my dissertation,
you’ll no doubt recognize many familiar ideas and themes. But I hope
you will also appreciate the ways in which the ideas are more refined and
the theory more mature. For the rest of you, you’ll be no worse off for
having missed my earlier offering, though some of you may wish I had
taken even longer.
There are many people to thank. I’ll begin by thanking two graduate
school officemates, Josh Kassner and Bénédicte Veillet, who were sub-
jected to my very early thoughts on the significance of non-moral cases.
Since then, Bénédicte has been further subjected to my developing
thoughts on these matters, and I’m grateful for her many insights and
friendship over the years. Special thanks as well to Peter Carruthers,
whose guidance in graduate school—and beyond—has been invaluable.
In particular, he’s been very influential in how I think about minds.
Around 2007, I somehow convinced Manuel Vargas into serving as the
external member on my dissertation committee, despite having never
really met him before. With his patience and friendly criticisms, from a
three-day marathon to go over the entire dissertation (over the phone,
and a landline, no less) to many subsequent exchanges over the years, he
has been a most generous mentor. A final “old school” thanks goes to
Mark Schroeder, who supervised my dissertation. Much of my current
thinking on responsibility has been shaped by both the space he gave me
to develop my own ideas and his uncanny ability to understand the virtues
of those ideas better than I did. Throughout my career, I’ve often turned to
Mark for advice, and he has rarely steered me wrong. I’m particularly
pleased that he has finally turned some of his own attention toward
thinking about responsibility, so now he can learn from me for a change.
Over the years, several senior philosophers have taken the time to
engage with me and my work. Whether they knew it or not, their
attention or kind words often came at the precise moment when
I needed it most. My thanks to Sarah Buss, John Martin Fischer,
Pamela Hieronymi, Michael McKenna, Herbert Morris, George Sher,
Seana Shiffrin, David Shoemaker, Angela Smith, Holly Smith, Mark van
Roojen, Gary Watson, and Gideon Yaffe.
ix
As for the book you now hold in your hands (or on your screens), it
benefited from the contributions of many individuals. Several people
read and commented on full drafts of the manuscript: John Martin
Fischer, Josh May, Mark Schroeder, and David Shoemaker. Each unques-
tionably improved the final product. I invite them to read the book again
carefully to see the fruits of their labors.
I’d like to thank the “Simpletons” Reading Group: Eric Brown, Daniel
Miller, and Nick Sars. We hung out on Zoom in three separate
sessions to discuss the entire manuscript during summer 2021, when
I had the basic ideas (mostly) worked out but many of the details under-
developed. (Nick Sars deserves an additional shoutout for giving me
pages of further comments after each session.) Their sharp criticisms
and constructive suggestions are evident in all chapters, even if some of
the details remain under-developed. They are, however, only now find-
ing out what I named our little group (owing to the book’s title, not our
collective intellect!).
The bulk of the writing was completed while I was on sabbatical from
UAB. My thanks to the Provost’s Office, Dean’s Office, and my chair,
David Chan, for granting me the year off from regular duties to complete
the manuscript.
During that same time, I was fortunate to hold a Murphy Fellowship at
the wonderful Murphy Institute at Tulane. My thanks to Steven Sheffrin
and David Shoemaker, who were at the time Executive Director of the
Institute and Director of the Center for Ethics and Public Affairs,
respectively, for the opportunity to work and learn with so many great
colleagues. The constraints of the COVID-19 pandemic forced me to
make the most of the fellowship remotely, so added thanks to the
Institute and all involved for providing such an excellent and accommo-
dating environment in which to work. As part of my year “at” Tulane,
I was able to present a snapshot of the book’s project early in its develop-
ment. My thanks to all who attended and asked great questions: Nathan
Biebel, Bruce Bower, Eric Brown, Alison Denham, Robert Hartman,
Cynthia Ma, David O’Brien, Abelard Podgorski, Jonathan Riley, Nick Sars,
David Shoemaker, Chad Van Schoelandt, Geoff Weiss. Abelard
Podgorski and Robert Hartman warrant special thanks—as my fellow
Murphy Fellows they were a regular source of support and insight as I wrote.
x
In the later stages of writing, I was lucky to present material from the
latter half of the book—mainly some ideas about blame—to several
audiences. I’d like to thank all the participants for their penetrating
and helpful questions: Peter Carruthers, Shen Pan, Paolo Santorio, and
Allen Stairs (University of Maryland Work-in-Progress Series); Abdul
Ansari, Sarah Buss, Jason Byas, Mica Rapstine, Peter Railton, Joseph
Shin, Chandra Sripada, and Lianghua (Glenn) Zhou (University of
Michigan’s Ethics Discussion Group); Trevor Adams, Aaron Bronfman,
Bjorn Flanagan, Guillermo Gonzalez, Janelle Gormley, Jason Lemmon,
Jennifer McKitrick, Adam Thomson, and Mark van Roojen (University of
Nebraska-Lincoln Seminar); David Brink, Rosalind Chaplin, Kathleen
Connelly, Ying Liu, Dana Nelkin, Sam Ridge, Manuel Vargas, and
Shawn Tinghao Wang (University of California-San Diego Agency and
Responsibility Group). I had a fantastic time with each group, and, while
I tried to take accurate notes of who was there, my sincere apologies to
anyone I may have missed.
Additional thanks to Peter Momtchiloff at OUP and two anonymous
reviewers for their helpful guidance on the manuscript and for consid-
ering the project on its own terms. Thanks as well to the entire OUP
production team for the excellent work bridging the gap between my files
and an actual book.
The community of philosophers working on action and responsibility
has been the most welcoming, generous, and, dare I say, fun group I’ve
met. I’m grateful to you all for making that community so special. Given
my fallibility, I’m sure I’m forgotten to thank someone, for which I’m
sorry. I’m somewhat consoled, however, by the fact that, since we’re the
kindest and coolest philosophers around, no one will hold it against me.
My final, and deepest, gratitude goes to my spouse, Jennifer. At this
stage, it is simply impossible to disentangle all the various threads of
support, insight, and partnership that she has provided over the years.
She deserves special recognition for having to listen to more of my ideas
on responsibility than anybody, and she has done so with virtuous
good humor, wisdom, and clarity of thought. Simply put: thank you
for everything.
Introduction
A General Theory of Responsibility
Simply Responsible: Basic Blame, Scant Praise, and Minimal Agency. Matt King, Oxford University Press.
© Matt King 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192883599.003.0001
2
¹ Selecting any work on which to base this little bit of commentary is a bit risky, since a
reader may not share my estimation of the work. But my observations should generalize to any
piece of music one prefers instead.
3
But our praise is not limited to great works of art. We are celebrated
for our contributions at work, the cake we bake, and the shots we make.
There is a great diversity to and broad range of things for which we are
praised.
These observations extend to the negative side of things as well. We
are criticized for our cooking, our trip planning, and our mismanage-
ment of money or time. There is no less diversity here.
The second point I want to make is that there is also a wide and diverse
range of ways in which we celebrate others. We applaud (but also hoot
and holler), we fête, we write moving tributes, we smile, we cheer, we
stand in awe, and we hand out trophies. Again, there isn’t much that
cheering has in common with handing over a bronze statuette. Yet, both
are ways by which we give praise.
Similar claims apply, again, to the negative side of things. We boo, we
give negative reviews, we jeer and call out others, we mark down, we feel
our ire rise, and we impose penalties. Again, there is extraordinary
diversity, and yet all are ways of disparaging others.
I make these observations at the outset to indicate the set of phenomena
with which I’m interested. We blame and praise each other throughout a
remarkable range of human endeavors—an incredibly diverse set of activ-
ities taking place within a staggering array of domains. Across academic,
artistic, and athletic domains (just to stick with “A”), we commend and
condemn, acclaim and accuse, give props and throw shade.
It strikes me that we clearly hold each other responsible for what we do
in all these areas. My starting point, then, is the whole range of human
activity (though I will often privilege artistic and athletic cases, to keep
the discussion focused). Importantly, a guiding idea of this book is
that the entire set of human activity, while broad and diffuse, is none-
theless fundamentally unified. There is no special moral realm of enter-
prise; rather, we do things in the world that can be assessed in a variety of
ways. We are not morally responsible for some things we do. We are
simply responsible for them, and some of them turn out to be morally
evaluable.²
² Arguably, virtually all we are responsible for is at least open to moral assessment. One virtue
of the account is that it can deliver this result straightforwardly and simply.
4
What’s in a Name?
³ A partial set includes: attributability vs. answerability vs. accountability; voluntarism vs.
non-voluntarism; real-self vs. control-based accounts.
⁴ Russell 2008 starts from a similar premise, parallelism between art and morality, but the
focus is on free will and its compatibility with determinism, and the chief exploration is through
concerns regarding the problem of luck. We thus develop the starting point in different
directions with different details. Haji 1998 also discusses blameworthiness across normative
domains, but leaves the concept unanalyzed, and doesn’t detail a supporting account of
responsibility to cover all the instances. Other projects that look at the broad set of agential
activities, but without a focus on responsibility, include Bradford 2015 and Shepherd 2021.
⁵ Admittedly, this is shifting. Some very recent work has started to look at similarities across
domains. See e.g. Brink 2021 (on legal and moral); Matheson & Milam 2022 (on non-moral
blame); Nelkin 2020 (on moral, aesthetic, and epistemic responsibility); Shoemaker 2022 (on
athletic anger). Still, my approach here is distinctive in just how general it aims to be (and, of
course, in the details of the account). The most similar approach might be in Wolf 2015:
Philosophers of action and of ethics tend to think that moral responsibility is a
central if not the central feature of human beings that distinguish us, at least in a
good way, from lower animals and machines. But if moral responsibility is not a part
of some larger or more general feature of human agency, it will be irrelevant to our
capacity for humor or creativity or to our susceptibility to nature or to beauty. It will
be irrelevant to much of what makes us alternatively lovable or obnoxious to each
other. This suggests that either moral responsibility has more limited significance
than these philosophers think, or—as I would prefer—that the most important and
deep kind of responsibility that distinguishes us as human is not limited to the
moral. (141)
As we’ll see, there are important points of divergence between this picture and the one I’ll
defend in this book, but the basic sentiment—that the most important and deep kind of
responsibility is not limited to the moral—is the same.
5
Indeed, despite all the diversification in the literature, the vast majority
of theories are designed as theories of moral responsibility.⁶ They are
organized around cases of moral significance and moral evaluation,
actions that are either morally bad or wrong. (Indeed, even moral
praise has been given short shrift.)⁷ For example, Michael McKenna
considers that “[p]erhaps there is a distinct notion of personal respon-
sibility (between intimates), or professional responsibility; another that
concerns aesthetic commitments, or athletic commitments, or matters of
etiquette” (2012: 7), before setting such considerations aside. R. Jay
Wallace admits that we praise an artist’s “striking and successful work
of art” such that “our praise and admiration reflect a kind of credit on its
creator” and that we can “condemn the pianist’s latest performance . . . in
a way that reflects discredit on the pianist,” but dismisses such cases
because “this kind of direct appraisal does not seem especially moral in
its quality” (1994: 53–4). More often, a theory’s default concern is with
the moral cases, and so the parallel instances aren’t explicitly addressed.⁸
This focus is, in one sense, perfectly understandable, since what
motivates our consideration of questions of responsibility is so often its
moral dimensions. It is cases of wrongdoing and punishment, of vicious-
ness and harm, that so animate our initial interest. It is thus unsurprising
that many would begin with the moral. Nevertheless, neglecting the non-
moral cases risks myopia. If we limit our gaze to morally significant
actions, it can appear obvious that non-moral cases aren’t relevant to
developing a theory of moral responsibility. Indeed, it is common for
theorists to simply stipulate that their theoretical focus is on moral
responsibility. One advantage of such a move is that it clarifies one’s
project at the outset. Responsibility is a particularly nebulous and
shifty topic. The ways in which we talk about responsibility are “richly
⁶ While this orthodoxy is slowly shifting, and though there have certainly been exceptions
(e.g. Fischer & Ravizza 1998 takes the moral responsibility relation to apply to non-moral
actions and outcomes), it remains true that most theories of responsibility are developed in
exclusively moral terms. Even those that indicate the relevance of non-moral instances tend to
focus exclusively on moral cases in developing their views.
⁷ Shoemaker 2015 and Vargas 2013 are notable recent exceptions.
⁸ Still others give accounts of something much closer to free will, if understood as the control
condition on responsibility. See McKenna 2012 for discussion. Prime examples would be
Fischer & Ravizza 1998 and Mele 1995. Even so, their focus still tends to be restricted to
moral phenomena (explicitly so in the case of Mele).
6
⁹ Zimmerman 1988: 1. He in turn cites Baier 1970: 103–7; Glover 1970: 19; and Hart 1968:
211–12, as making similar observations. No doubt this is a pervasive feature of the background
on theorizing about “responsibility.”
¹⁰ See Rosen 2015 for an analysis of moral responsibility that begins, explicitly, with several
rounds of stipulations. It is a model of clarity, and it makes the resulting discussion extremely
composed and tractable. It also, by necessity, restricts theoretical options, and involves ruling
out certain possibilities: “When you admire someone for . . . her fine performance on the bongos,
you do not thereby deem her morally responsible in any sense” (68 n. 7, italics in original).
I don’t want to stipulatively foreclose the possibility that excellent bongo-playing is relevant to
moral responsibility.
¹¹ See Wallace 1994 for such a view.
¹² If it helps, one can imagine for a moment that it is 1995. Alanis Morissette’s “Jagged Little
Pill” is dominating the airwaves, “Matlock” just broadcast its final episode, and NASA’s Galileo
probe has reached Jupiter. Of more immediate bearing, Gary Watson hasn’t yet published “Two
Faces of Responsibility” (though its ideas may certainly have started circulating, I can’t speak to
that). Consequently, the literature isn’t framed by a division between kinds of responsibility, like
attributability and accountability. (Of course, one will have to return to the present to continue
reading, else many of my references will make no sense.) I return to the idea of pluralism about
responsibility in Chapter 5.
7
¹³ On these distinctions between kinds of storms, I follow National Public Radio’s reporting
(https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/11/08/243980516/which-is-it-hurricane-
typhoon-or-tropical-cyclone).
¹⁴ The suffering they cause where they are located is another matter entirely.
8
and non-moral conduct. I’ll argue that the parallels between moral and
non-moral evaluation reveal an underlying commonality, what I’ll call
the basic responsibility relation. I may be mistaken, of course. Perhaps
moral blameworthiness and praiseworthiness really are distinctive,
and moral responsibility is its own special relation.¹⁵ But there is a
difference between objecting to a general account and dismissing it.
One cannot dismiss planetary motion whilst defending Galileo over
Newton, insisting that one is only concerned with the motion of falling
bodies, or ignore Maxwell’s account of electromagnetism by stipulating
an interest in electricity alone. Likewise, one cannot dismiss my
approach because one thinks the non-moral cases are irrelevant to
moral responsibility, for even if they are, they are clearly relevant to a
more general theory.
Being Responsible
¹⁵ Obviously, I don’t deny that there are some differences between moral and non-moral
responsibility. I only deny that moral responsibility is a distinctive relation. Still, it’s plausible
that moral responsibility has a distinctive significance, a point to which I return at various stages.
¹⁶ Or, alternatively, each of its members for their contribution. The question of collective
responsibility is interesting in its own right, but I won’t consider it here. For some relevant
discussion, see Björnsson & Hess 2017; French 1984; Isaacs 2011.
¹⁷ Cf. Smith 2007: “to say that a person is morally responsible for some thing is to say that it
can be attributed to her in the way that is required in order for it to be a basis for moral
appraisal” (467). See also Berofsky 1987; Oakley 1992; Scanlon 1998 (all referenced in Smith
2007: 468 n. 6).
9
¹⁸ There is no consensus on just what the problem of free will is. But I take at least a major
recognizable strand of that problem to concern our ability to be meaningfully connected to the
things we do in the world given the way that the world is structured.
¹⁹ Cf. Shoemaker 2015, which cites a division between theories that take being responsible to
be the primary relation (what he calls the b-tradition) and those that take the appropriateness of
holding responsible to be primary (what he calls the h-tradition) (19–20). See also Brink &
Nelkin 2013. In my view, the heteronomy of our practices of holding others responsible, the
wide variety in our appropriate responses, makes the h-tradition unstable. The more varied our
responses, the less likely we are to derive a notion of being responsible out of them, rather than
many. The h-tradition, then, is more likely to result in pluralism about responsibility as a
methodological consequence. I take there to be some sociological support for this claim given
that most h-tradition theorists are either pluralists about responsibility or else artificially restrict
the scope of their views. For a nuanced discussion of the relative priority of these two questions,
by which I’ve been influenced, see McKenna 2012: 39–55.
10
²⁰ I take no stand, however, on the precise nature of the metaphysics involved, whether the
relation is to be understood as, say, part of the “furniture of the universe” or in some other
respectable way. The idea here is simply that responsibility is best understood as relating
persons to things they can be evaluated for in a way that is inescapably metaphysical, in contrast
to certain contemporary approaches that frame questions of responsibility in normative terms
(see e.g. Darwall 2006; Scanlon 2008; Wallace 1994).
11
things we’ve done even when we’re forgiven for them and it often makes
perfect sense to apologize for things for which we aren’t responsible
(damage produced by our child; an innocent but consequential mistake).
Naturally, our more general theories will have to accommodate facts about
apology and forgiveness. But that is to be expected. Indeed, to the extent
that non-moral apology abounds (a player might apologize to a teammate
for dropping a pass—and be subsequently forgiven), the general frame-
work I’m providing may prove fruitful beyond what I set out to explore
here.²¹ Nevertheless, I will leave a detailed consideration of the compli-
cated dynamics involved in the fuller range of our responses to the
responsible for later work, though I will at times revisit this theme in the
chapters to come. In particular, I’ll consider the relevance of justifying
punishment in Chapter 4. For similar reasons to those regarding apology
and forgiveness, I’ll argue that the appropriateness of punishment is
largely orthogonal to a theory of responsibility. For now, I’ll note that
questions of punishment are inapt across a wide swath of human activity
in which we are seemingly nonetheless responsible.
There are, of course, different ways we might seek more generality
from a theory of responsibility. Thus, I acknowledge at the outset that my
approach isn’t necessarily the only sort of worthwhile generalization.
Different strategies may yield different virtues worth considering.
Nevertheless, my initial interest is in consulting the broader set of
activities in which we’re responsible. If there are commonalities between
being responsible for the moral things we do and, say, the artistic ones,
those commonalities are worth exploring. And investigating these com-
monalities directs us toward a more general theory of responsibility.
In what follows, I develop that general theory. I argue that despite its
simplicity, the basic responsibility relation figures in an attractive and
²¹ Though, again, see Matheson & Milam 2022 for an argument that all such cases of
responsibility are in fact cases of “moral” responsibility. I discuss their approach in Chapter 3
when considering non-moral blame.
12
²² So, for instance, those that take responsibility (in whatever flavor) to be importantly about
grounding desert of sanction or punishment can interpret the basic responsibility relation as
being fundamental to that other notion of responsibility. I’ll revisit some of the available
takeaways in the Conclusion.
13
²³ Such connections will often be relegated to footnotes, however, in the interest of main-
taining flow. My apologies to those whose sensibilities are offended by this possibly profligate
deployment.
²⁴ Cf. Weatherson 2003.
14
Local Focus
not sufficient for actually doing them. Successfully riding a bike requires
actually pedaling, steering, and balancing.²⁵
Thus, I focus on what people do do, rather than what they can do.
Their capacities are of secondary importance, for having the capacity to
be responsible cannot adequately explain being responsible for some-
thing.²⁶ And it’s being responsible that I’m most interested in.
Moreover, focusing on who is a responsible agent and who isn’t is
liable to get things importantly wrong. For instance, it is common to
examine exemptions as considerations that establish a lack of responsible
agency. The exempt cannot be responsible for anything.²⁷ But this
often treats matters too crudely. Those in the latter stages of progressive
dementia typically suffer from numerous cognitive and regulatory
impairments. Let us assume these impairments render them non-
responsible for their actions, such as angry outbursts or a remark that
would otherwise appear careless but for their confusion. Still, even those
with progressed dementia are subject to occasional bouts of clarity,
where symptoms largely abate, allowing them to think more clearly.
Such a person would seemingly be responsible for their outbursts or
insensitive comments under such conditions, regardless of their more
general capacities.²⁸ And this observation generalizes, I think. It follows
from my approach that so long as one satisfies the conditions on being
responsible for a particular thing, one is thereby responsible for it, no
matter their general capacities, and no matter the likelihood that they are
(or will be or were) responsible for anything else.²⁹
²⁵ We could call these instances of exercising a capacity, of course. Still, that doesn’t really
help matters. It is unclear what exercising a capacity involves that isn’t exhausted by doing the
particular elements themselves.
²⁶ Contrast Wallace 1994: “what matters is not our ability to exercise our general powers of
reflective self-control, but simply the possession of such powers” (183).
²⁷ This might be a general exemption across the board or, for pluralists, exemption from a
particular type of responsibility. See Shoemaker 2015 for a project organized around particular-
ized exemptions.
²⁸ For a discussion of the dangers of exemption, both methodologically and morally, see King
& May 2018 and Shoemaker 2022. There are also many complications here I’m ignoring, such as
implications that certain conditions, like dementia, might have for, say, personal identity
(see e.g. Dresser 1995).
²⁹ One way of interpreting this position is as an extreme version of an “actual-sequence”
approach to responsibility. See e.g. Fischer 2011.
16
Roadmap
into motion—watching the boot kick the cup over, which released
the ball bearing down the zigzag path, eventually flipping the man off
the see-saw . . . .
Rube Goldberg machines can be immensely fun to construct and
watch. This was certainly my experience with MouseTrap. But as a
means of accomplishing their goal, they’re definitionally overly complex.
Far easier than using the board game’s contraption to trap the oppo-
nent’s piece would be to simply drop the cage directly.³⁰
Similarly, elaborate theories and explanations of phenomena can
ensnare our interest and attention. And while an intricate account can
explain just as well as a simpler one, the simpler one is generally to be
preferred. In my view, contemporary theories of responsibility are a bit
like Rube Goldberg machines. They are more complicated than they
need to be. Part of the ambition of this book is to correct for these
extraneous complications. Indeed, I think responsibility comes rather
easily—“on the cheap,” as it were—and this book constitutes an initial
defense of that claim.
In its ambition, the project risks arrogance. After all, many very
talented theorists have turned their careful attention to the nature of
moral responsibility, and whether concentrated on the traditional prob-
lem of free will or more contemporary concerns, the subject matter has
been carefully, and thoroughly, scrutinized. But my aim here isn’t to
quarrel directly with such attempts. Instead, I’m offering an alternative
approach for consideration; a possibility story. The aim is to draft a
competing view, to get the picture up and running, demonstrating its
attractions, rather than to establish it as superior to all rivals. The book is
thus oriented toward getting the basic pieces in place.
To that end, it will be helpful to have a sense of the full picture before
beginning. Obviously, I can only sketch the overall structure of the
theory at this stage. Still, I hope that having at least that sketch will
help readers in discerning and digesting the discussion to come.
³⁰ Somewhat ironically, this is often what had to be done during gameplay anyway, as the
penultimate step in the contraption, responsible for triggering the cage dropping, was notori-
ously unreliable.
18
Chapter 1 lays out the initial case for the basic responsibility relation.
I observe a number of parallels across a wide range of moral and non-
moral cases, which support a shared relation that connects doers to their
doings so that the former can be evaluated by the latter’s lights. This is
the basic responsibility relation. The goal is to establish a framework
from which we might build a theory of general responsibility.
Chapter 2 develops the elements of the basic responsibility relation
and explains why those elements contribute to the relation doing the
work that it does. I argue that the basic responsibility relation is
grounded on the core features of our agency that we use to navigate
the world as we do. These elements constitute our basic agency and
provide the basis for a kind of control over our activities. This control is
sensitive to some very basic conditions, which I argue are the conditions
on the basic responsibility relation.
The structure of the basic responsibility relation connects agents to the
things they do such that they can be evaluated by the properties of their
actions. The evaluations of the agents come in two basic flavors: positive
and negative. Chapter 3 articulates these evaluations in terms of basic
blame and basic praise. I begin with the tight conceptual connection
between blameworthiness and blame: blame is just what the blamewor-
thy are worthy of. (The story for praiseworthiness and praise is perfectly
parallel.) Through the first two chapters, we’ll have seen a wide variety of
things for which we can be blameworthy and praiseworthy. There is also
a diverse array of ways to be blamed and praised. Consequently, I argue
we have reason to look for a very minimal notion of basic blame (and
basic praise) that all cases of blame (and praise) share. I argue that basic
blame is the response merited by all who are responsible for something
bad and basic praise is the response merited by those responsible for
something good. The rest of the chapter develops the view by high-
lighting what it gets right about blame and blaming, while defending it
against worries that it is too modest a notion.
In constructing my account of basic blame and basic praise, the
worthiness relation is left unanalyzed. If the blameworthy are worthy
of blame, then an account of blameworthiness owes us an account of the
way in which they are worthy of that blame. Chapter 4 outlines this
worthiness relation in terms of a familiar notion: basic desert. I argue
19
that desert is a natural candidate for the worthiness relation, and, though
not entirely uncontroversial, one that has consensus support already.
I suggest that we understand the desert in question in terms of a
kind of fittingness, and that this relation is non-trivial. When the
basic responsibility relation holds, we merit the evaluative responses we
do (basic blame and basic praise) in light of our evaluative properties
(basic blameworthiness and praiseworthiness), which we have in virtue
of the basic responsibility relation (and whether the thing we’re respon-
sible for is good or bad).
Chapter 5 examines the prospects for the theory of basic responsibility
to speak to some familiar themes from the existing literature on moral
responsibility. In particular, I develop some ideas sketched in Chapter 2
regarding the connection between the control afforded us via basic
agency and our evaluative stances. There is a long tradition that
seeks to isolate the responsibility-grounding elements of a person—the
so-called “real self.” Drawing upon some insights from that tradition,
I argue that the picture I’ve developed in the book gives us satisfying, if
unusual, explanations of deep evaluations of ourselves, our characters,
and attitudes.
A brief conclusion, well, concludes. I gesture toward some larger
lessons from the preceding discussion, as well as consider some more
speculative implications of my overall view.
1
The Basic Responsibility Relation
Simply Responsible: Basic Blame, Scant Praise, and Minimal Agency. Matt King, Oxford University Press.
© Matt King 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192883599.003.0002
21
¹ Buckner reportedly received a standing ovation when his name was announced in the first
home game of his second stint with the club, indicating a good many fans had forgiven him.
² Some coverage can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Buckner.
³ The relationship between responsibility and desert is contentious. I’ll take up the relation-
ship directly in Chapter 4. For now, desert talk can be treated loosely, as synonymous with
whatever worthiness is involved in being blameworthy and praiseworthy.
22
⁴ See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Raspberry_Awards.
⁵ LIFE Magazine, August 1949.
23
one of the worst films ever made. As writer, director, and principal actor,
the ignominy for its many flaws seems to rest squarely on Wiseau’s
shoulders.⁶ (Its making has since been immortalized—and somewhat
celebrated—in the 2017 film, The Disaster Artist.)
The list could go on. Sometimes, after reading a particularly incisive
philosophy paper or coming across an inventive argument, I write to its
author to commend them. (Even more frequently, I am sure to tell
students when they’ve been creative or otherwise excellent in generating
a question, argument, or objection.) Or consider the importance of
academic practices of citation and the related misconduct of plagiarism.
To fail to give credit to the work of others is to try to claim it for oneself.
At a minimum, one risks misleading a reader about where credit is due.
Our default is to see the written piece as a product of its author. Here, as
elsewhere, we are assessed for the products of our work (as anyone who
has filled out an annual report for administrators can attest).
It’s also worth considering some more mundane examples, to give a
sense of the proper scope and diversity of these practices. When one
comes home to find one’s spouse has tidied the house or made dinner,
one is appreciative of them because they are the one who is responsible. If
a neighbor had brought over dinner or the kids had done the tidying,
one’s gratitude would have to be redirected. The plumber gets our thanks
for the cleared clog, and the mechanic our ire if he overcharges or makes
the problem worse.
One might think that such a disparate set resists systematization, but
several features are common to all these examples. First, individuals are
being evaluated for their activities. While we can appreciate the beauty of
a painting in the way we might appreciate, say, the beauty of a sunset,
without attributing it to any author, this is not how we normally respond
to artwork.⁷ Our stance toward the object treats it as someone’s doing. It
is not just an agreeable arrangement of properties, but the result of
someone’s activity. In museums, we search out that card or plaque
with identifying information. Just who is responsible for this remarkable
sculpture? Whose mistaken vision is behind this crass and clumsy still
life? Why is there a urinal on display?⁸ It usually isn’t enough to read that
our team won the game. We also want to know how the players played:
who scored the runs, who made the stops, who fumbled. (Indeed, it’s
somewhat telling that we often metaphorically employ phrases origi-
nating from holding players responsible in sport contexts elsewhere:
“I really dropped the ball at the grocery store”; “That presentation was a
hole-in-one!”)
Moreover, whatever we think about the activity is connected in some
way to its author. It was Buckner’s fault the ball made it past him. Even if
others can be implicated in the run scoring, missing the ball at first was a
bad play, and it was Buckner’s.⁹ While many Red Sox fans no doubt
overreacted with their vitriol and their manner of holding him respon-
sible, they were not mistaken in finding him at fault. His performance on
the play certainly gave them reason to be unhappy with him.
When the museum-goer derides a Pollock or Rothko by claiming,
“I could’ve painted that,” they are diminishing the role of the artist and
her skill, suggesting that there is no talent on display. Regardless of
whether their assessment is correct, they clearly take the artist to be
responsible for the painting, and so its qualities are reflective of the artist.
The point is no less obvious for moral activities. The allure of who-
dunnits is not limited to solving the puzzle, but to fix our anger and
reproach. Moral disasters are tragic, but we do not rest with merely
registering the loss. It matters who the author of the atrocity is, for that
is who warrants our outrage. Even in less serious moral matters, we seek
out the relevant culprit. Anonymous donations leave us wondering who’s
responsible, who warrants our admiration.¹⁰ It is not a happy accident,
but rather the work of someone.
¹³ I am here denying a kind of value skepticism in which there simply are no relevant values
to make any activities good or bad. Such a robust skepticism seems to me extraordinarily
pessimistic and undermotivated.
¹⁴ I consider these complications in later chapters; for now, I’m concerned with outlining
some general features of the cases.
27
¹⁵ This is a somewhat simplified way of putting the point. We sometimes hold ourselves
responsible and we also hold people responsible for things besides their actions. But my
untechnical “doings” is meant to be understood broadly and so capture more than might be
connoted by the term “action.” I take up holding oneself responsible in Chapter 3, and
responsibility for non-actions in Chapter 5.
28
¹⁶ Some considerations, it seems, plausibly count in favor of tempering our responses, but
this could be so without affecting the underlying blameworthiness or responsibility. For
example, a spouse might apologize for snapping at their partner by noting that they’ve “had a
really rough day.” My view is to treat such reasons as being relevant to how we ought to hold
others responsible rather than the responsibility relation itself. I’ll return to such considerations
in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4.
29
¹⁸ Compare Smith 2007: “To say that a person is morally responsible for something, then, is
merely to say that she is connected to it in such a way that it can . . . serve as a basis for moral
appraisal of that person” (468). I broadly agree, so long as we do not limit ourselves to moral
appraisal.
¹⁹ While there is very plausibly morally neutral activity, it’s less clear that there is evaluatively
neutral activity. Most of what we do can be assessed according to some standard or another. At a
minimum, most things we do can be done well or poorly. But, so I contend, they only reflect well
or poorly on us when we’re responsible for them.
31
²⁰ Though not always. To some, “praise” connotes overt activity in a way that “blame” does
not, independent of the standards one is using to evaluate. My intuitions differ, but even if
blame and praise came apart in this way conceptually, it would not doom the account to come.
I could always supplant the view with a different set of parallel evaluative notions, since I’m
more confident that we evaluate the activities of agents across domains than I am that blame and
praise are the only evaluative notions we have to use when theorizing about responsibility.
Regardless, I do think that these positive and negative evaluations are justifiably conceptualized
as praise and blame, as I argue in Chapter 3.
32
praise, on the one hand, and between the moral and non-moral on
the other.
Still, even if there were important asymmetries, the symmetrical data
is significant. If I’m right, then to the extent that blameworthiness and
praiseworthiness are undermined in parallel, this still suggests that there
is something the cases share. Thus, asymmetries only threaten the basic
responsibility relation if they are threatening to the worthiness of blame/
praise. To take a trivial example: blame is “negative” and praise is
“positive,” but that difference isn’t relevant to the argument for a basic
responsibility relation. (This is why I talk of symmetry rather than
sameness.)
Naturally, the trivial example is not what proponents of asymmetry
have in mind, but it is nonetheless suggestive. I don’t deny, for instance,
that we often do very different things when we’re blaming than when
we’re praising. There’s often a confrontational element to blaming
another that isn’t present when we praise, and we may be more prone
to raising our voices. (It is telling, however, praising often includes a
similar element of seeking out the responsible party, though the purpose
is not to confront.) The oft-cited emotional elements of blaming (e.g.
resentment or anger) look harsher and more aggressive than those
mentioned for praise (e.g. gratitude or admiration).²¹ We also may
have more reason to be concerned about the ways in which blame is
deployed than for praise. Worries that attend the potential harms of
blame may not resonate at all (or only less so or differently) when
considering praise.
Such differences, however, to the extent that they mirror the trivial
example—that is, to the extent that the things we do when blaming are,
roughly, “negative,” whereas those when praising are “positive”—they
fail to undercut the significance of the symmetrical data. Perhaps we
might care more about blaming than praising. My contention is that
blameworthiness and praiseworthiness share a symmetry of structure,
not necessarily significance.
Some defenses of asymmetry, in contrast, are explicitly cast in struc-
tural terms. Perhaps mostly famously, Susan Wolf (1990) argues that
²¹ See Chapter 3 for more on the significance of this variation in our responses.
33
²² See also Nelkin 2011. ²³ For separate criticism, see Fischer & Ravizza 1998.
²⁴ This is not an innocent assumption. The empirical data suggest things are far more
complicated than depicted in this naïve picture of the kleptomaniac (as typically portrayed in
Hollywood, e.g.). But it’s a useful fiction for current purposes. For further discussion, see King &
May 2018, 2022 and Schroeder 2005 (which discusses Tourette Syndrome).
²⁵ This is also not an innocent assumption. Requiring that the agent “could have done
otherwise” is an infamously contentious condition on responsibility. The relevant literature is
enormous. Two good starting places are Frankfurt 1969 and Nelkin 2011.
34
*****
Ihmisen elämä ei ole kerrottavissa eikä kirjoitettavissa. Sitäkin
vähemmän soveltuu kerrottavaksi sellaisen ihmisen elämä, joka on
rakastanut maata ja samoillut sen ristiin rastiin. Mutta on melkein
mahdotonta antaa elävää kuvaa hänen elämästään, jos hän on ollut
tulisielu, joka on taipaleellaan tuntenut onnen ja kurjuuden kaikki
asteet. Mahdotonta ensiksikin hänelle itselleen, ja mahdotonta niille,
jotka häntä kuuntelevat.
Ja sitten vielä eräs vaikeus: ken rakastaa, hän ei ole yksin. Hän ei
ole yksin silloinkaan, kun hän ei enää halaja rakkautta, kuten on
minun laitani nyt. Tämä pitää paikkansa niihinkin ihmisiin nähden,
jotka elävät muistoista, sillä nykyhetkellä on osansa näihin
muistoihin. Ei hyödytä toivoa kuolemaa. Minä olen usein elämässäni
vilpittömästi toivonut sitä. Mutta silloin ovat menneisyyden kauniit
kuvat nousseet ilmielävinä eteeni, ne ovat hellyttäneet sydämeni,
vaihtaneet katkeruuden iloksi ja pakoittaneet minut yhä uudelleen ja
uudelleen etsimään ikuista lohtua ihmisten kasvoista. Yksi näistä
kauniista kuvista oli Barba Yani.
»Ei, Barba Yani, vaan juuri nyt!… Vain hetkinen. Hyvän kaupan
kunniaksi».
»Niin, Stavraki, olen totisesti sitä mieltä, että olet 'kurja narri', sillä
kauniit eläimet, jotka jäivät tuonne ulos, ovat nyt poissa, tai on
näköni huono!»
»Kautta Allahin, se on totta? Sinä olet siis tuo poika, joka etsi
silmäpuolta äitiään. Sait varmaankin kokea monta kovaa tuon
satyyrin luona!»
»Niin… En tuntenut häntä!»
*****
Ei, Barba Yani ei enää ollut sairas. Nyt oli minun vuoroni
sairastaa…
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms
of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.F.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.