ABSTRACT
In my account of fact-sensitive ought-assignments, moral responsibility cannot be reduced to moral blameworthiness. It depends also on a broader definition, including the can- and fitness-conditions, specifically the soft and hard constraints discussed in Part 1. In Chapter 4, I consider the fitness-conditions of individual agents as they are understood within the framework of rational-individualism. I consider whether this framework understands rational agency in a way that makes agents fit to be held responsible for the consequences of their choices. Second, I apply the earlier developed account of non-reductionist institutionalism and investigate whether certain types of institutionalised group agents may be fit to be held morally responsible for climate change. I conclude that rational agents are unfit to be held morally responsible for climate change.
