Publication | Closed Access
Responsibility as Answerability
227
Citations
22
References
2015
Year
Recent scholarship has distinguished two senses of moral responsibility—attributability and accountability—first introduced by Watson and adopted by many philosophers. The study questions the attributability/accountability distinction, arguing it creates confusion rather than clarity in moral responsibility debates. The author proposes a unified concept of moral responsibility, termed responsibility as answerability, to replace the dual-sense distinction. This unified notion explains the same aspects attributed to both senses while avoiding multiplicity and permitting substantive disagreement over its conditions.
It has recently become fashionable among those who write on questions of moral responsibility to distinguish two different concepts, or senses, of moral responsibility via the labels 'responsibility as attributability' and 'responsibility as accountability'. Gary Watson was perhaps the first to introduce this distinction in his influential 1996 article 'Two Faces of Responsibility' (in Agency and Answerability, 260–86. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), but it has since been taken up by many other philosophers. My aim in this study is to raise some questions and doubts about this distinction and to argue that it has led to confusion rather than clarification in debates over moral responsibility. In place of the attributability/accountability distinction, I propose that there is a single (and unified) concept of moral responsibility underlying our actual moral practices. This core notion of moral responsibility, which I call 'responsibility as answerability', is well positioned to explain those aspects of our moral practice that Watson associates with the 'attributability' face of moral responsibility as well as those aspects of our moral practice he associates with the 'accountability' face. But it does so in a way that does not require us to multiply senses of moral responsibility and that allows us to continue to have meaningful disagreements over the basic conditions of moral responsibility.
| Year | Citations | |
|---|---|---|
Page 1
Page 1