What do you think?
Rate this book
Responsibility & Luck: A Defense of Praise and Blame
Does the pervasive influence of luck in life mean that people cannot be held responsible for their choices? Do people lack the control required to justify moral praise and blame? In his famous article "Moral Luck," philosopher Thomas Nagel casts doubt on our ordinary moral judgments of persons. He claims that we intuitively accept that moral responsibility requires control, yet we praise and blame people for their actions, the outcomes of those actions, and their characters--even though shaped by forces beyond their control, i.e., by luck. This is the "problem of moral luck." Philosopher Diana Hsieh argues that this attack on moral judgment rests on a faulty view of control, as well as other errors. By developing Aristotle's theory of moral responsibility, Hsieh explains the sources and limits of a person's responsibility for what he does, what he produces, and who he is. Ultimately, she shows that moral judgments are not undermined by luck. In addition, this book explores the nature of moral agency and free will, the purpose of moral judgment, causation in tort and criminal law, the process of character development, and more.
- GenresPhilosophy
215 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 30, 2013
2 people are currently reading
22 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
April 13, 2014
My amateur opinion, January 17, 2014
I've been studying philosophy for about three years now. I found the book to be challenging yet approachable and finally rewarding. I can't judge whether the coverage of all topics was thorough or not. I can say that after reading this book I have a much deeper appreciation for the kinds of moral judgement that exist and their different purposes and requirements. I can also say that Diana makes a very good case for Aristotle's foundations.
I had not previously studied the Nicomachean ethics, only hearing of it briefly. This book does not spend much time on the contents of Aristotle's work and that may be a good thing, but I think it adequately demonstrates that Aristotle did present the fundamentals.
Diana writes clearly and puts much effort into covering the topics more extensively then I have ever found in my prior readings.
At times I did struggle a bit with maintaining the differences between the various types of moral judgement . I can't help but think that there may have been some way to make that easier for the amateur. However, I eventually memorized the difference by the third or fourth chapter. I think this memorization issue is the one that makes me most confident in saying that this book is not for beginners and as such approaches being a philosophy book for philosophers as apposed to the average person. I think the uninitiated would need to be very motivated and patient to make their way through the book. Before you read this book you should have at least a weak grasp of the history of western philosophy.
I've been studying philosophy for about three years now. I found the book to be challenging yet approachable and finally rewarding. I can't judge whether the coverage of all topics was thorough or not. I can say that after reading this book I have a much deeper appreciation for the kinds of moral judgement that exist and their different purposes and requirements. I can also say that Diana makes a very good case for Aristotle's foundations.
I had not previously studied the Nicomachean ethics, only hearing of it briefly. This book does not spend much time on the contents of Aristotle's work and that may be a good thing, but I think it adequately demonstrates that Aristotle did present the fundamentals.
Diana writes clearly and puts much effort into covering the topics more extensively then I have ever found in my prior readings.
At times I did struggle a bit with maintaining the differences between the various types of moral judgement . I can't help but think that there may have been some way to make that easier for the amateur. However, I eventually memorized the difference by the third or fourth chapter. I think this memorization issue is the one that makes me most confident in saying that this book is not for beginners and as such approaches being a philosophy book for philosophers as apposed to the average person. I think the uninitiated would need to be very motivated and patient to make their way through the book. Before you read this book you should have at least a weak grasp of the history of western philosophy.
Displaying 1 of 1 review