ABSTRACT
Revisionism is the view that we can and should distinguish between what we think about moral responsibility and what we ought to think about it, that the former is in some important sense implausible and con icts with the latter, and so we should revise our concept accordingly. This explicit distinction between what we do think and what we ought to think represents a signi cant departure from traditional methodological approaches to theorizing about moral responsibility (and the kind of free will relevant to responsibility). Here I aim to provide a clear picture of the contours of revisionism. I will do so in part by identifying and assessing three unique challenges any successful revisionist account must meet. I argue that revisionists can meet these challenges, although doing so requires some re nement of previous attempts. I conclude with some remarks on the advantages of the overall revisionist program, and on why revisionism is ultimately worth pursuing.
