ABSTRACT
In the venerable tradition of responsibility that traces to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, ignorance and lack of freedom can undermine a person’s accessibility to moral blame or praise.1 These widely accepted excusing conditions require supplementation with two others. One pertains to agency. We are exempt from responsibility if we fail to be agents of a certain sort. For example, if we are unable to regard any consideration as a reason for action, we cannot be morally blame-or praiseworthy for our behavior. Regarding some factor as a reason for an action requires an ability to see that, because of that factor, practical reason recommends performing the action. Or, again, if we are unable to evaluate reasons and judge, in light of our reasons, which course of action is subjectively best-best from the perspective of our own values-then we cannot be responsible. A second condition may be dubbed the “inauthenticity” condition. Its underlying idea is that one cannot be responsible for an action causally generated by actional springs such as desires, beliefs, or values that are not “truly one’s own” or “inauthentic.” An unwitting victim of brainwashing, having been “endowed” with a fresh set of values, goals, and other pro-attitudes, may willfully perform an anticipated transgression upon being released from captivity. Still, despite being an appropriate agent for responsibility ascriptions, having “responsibilitygrounding” control in performing her action, and failing to act “out of” germane ignorance in doing what she does, many would agree that she is not deserving of blame for at least her initial offense; she is not blameworthy because she acted on actional springs that are not “authentic.”2
