ABSTRACT
In this chapter, the author responds to three arguments against his views that David Widerker has developed in a recent essay. The first is that a person may perform an action in circumstances that make it impossible for him to avoid performing the action but that do not in any way bring it about that he performs it. In his second argument, Widerker challenges the assumption that if a fact is irrelevant to the explanation of why an agent performed a certain act, then this fact has no bearing on the agent's moral responsibility for the act. In developing his third argument, Widerker asserts that a person is blameworthy for what he does only if it would be reasonable to expect him not to have done it; and that it is unreasonable to expect him not to have done something if it was impossible for him to avoid doing it.
