ABSTRACT
This chapter argues against traditional diagnoses of the problem of mental responsibility which attempt to locate its origin in a lack of direct or indirect voluntary control over attitudes. It is argued that these diagnoses don’t reveal a genuine philosophical puzzle. Instead, the puzzle arises from the fact that even automatically acquired attitudes are held for reasons or are rationally evaluable. They are therefore evaluable in terms of whether they’re based on sufficient reasons, i.e., in terms of whether they’re (substantively) rational. It seems that no kind of control can explain our direct responsibility for holding (ir)rational attitudes. This gives rise to our philosophical puzzle. The task of this book is to make sense of this direct responsibility for rationality by considering our accountability or blaming practices. The chapter also clarifies the concepts of norms and reasons, and of responsibility and blame, as they are employed throughout the book.
