ABSTRACT
The arguments which follow are directed mainly at this avoidance task, undertaken not only as a discussion of justification procedures for responsible agency statements, but also as a step in the discussion of justification procedures for attributive and deontic R-statements. The core of the argument here is that the determinist's case against moral responsibility stands or fall not so much on matters of logic as on matters of rhetoric. The psychological mechanism for getting satisfaction from retribution may also have to do with empathy. On the matter of the responsible agency question, it is clear that two versions of practice are either indifferent to the free will problem, or else positively require some sort of causal hypothesis. The free will version of the agency question will either be relevant to practice in the way it is relevant to compensatory and protective points of making attributions.
