ABSTRACT
The question of exculpation raises various issues. The classic starting point for the discussion is the assumption that an agent is to be excused if and only if he 'could not have done otherwise'. This chapter concerns the assumption, common to libertarian and dissolutionist alike, that an agent is responsible if and only if he could have done otherwise. It argues that this is an oversimplification. That an agent could not have done otherwise seems to be a sufficient but not a necessary condition of exculpating him from blame. The notion of defeasibility was borrowed from the law and given a special sense for philosophical purposes. Notions of exculpation develop like the rest of morality. The chapter also presents an account of the notion of responsibility, to contrast with those of the dissolutionist and the moral libertarian which were rejected as being oversimplified.
