Skip to main content
Log in

Responsibility and Alternative Possibilities: The Use and Abuse of Examples

  • Published:
The Journal of Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The philosophical debate over the compatibility between causaldeterminism and moral responsibility relies heavily on ourreactions to examples. Although we believe that there is noalternative to this methodology in this area of philosophy, someexamples that feature prominently in the literature are positivelymisleading. In this vein, we criticize the use that incompatibilistsmake of the phenomenon of ``brainwashing,'' as well as the Frankfurt-styleexamples favored by compatibilists. We provide an instance of thekind of thought experiment that is needed to genuinely test thehypothesis that moral accountability and causal determinism arecompatible.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Black, S., Tweedale, J. Responsibility and Alternative Possibilities: The Use and Abuse of Examples. The Journal of Ethics 6, 281–303 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019517230380

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019517230380

Navigation