반응적 태도 이론과 책임의 귀속 문제

Abstract

The goal of this paper is to show that the concept of moral responsibility can be well explained through the Reactive Attitude Theory. In the Reactive Attitude Theory, reactive attitudes of fellow agents are the basis for attribution of responsibility. The appropriateness of the reactive attitude depends on interpersonal relations, that is, practice, and the expectations that we have for each other. If this theory is valid, responsibility is attributed to the agent, even though determinism is true. I start with P. F. Strawson’s argument that reactive attitudes are the basis for attribution of responsibilities, and I look through the Normative Interpretation by J. Wallace that constrains and clarifies reactive attitudes and practices through normative concepts. And then, I want to show how practices let reactive attitudes hold people responsible in M. McKenna’s Conversation Theory. Strawson was the first philosopher to attempt to attribute responsibility through a reactive attitude, but he’s account is criticized for not only its ambiguity and vagueness but also unsolved problems of harmful practices. To solve these problems, Wallace organized the theory of reactive attitudes in a systematic form with normative concepts. However, he overlooks the role of practices that play a pivotal role in holding agents responsible. I argue that these problems can be complemented by McKenna's Conversation theory. Reactive Attitude Theory is a sound and original way of understanding responsibility and could provide a more extended understanding of the agency as a subject of responsibility.