Showing papers by "George Sher published in 2002"
TL;DR: In this article, the authors distinguish a stronger and a weaker version of this claim and argue that it is false if it is taken to mean that agents can only be blamed for bad acts when those acts are manifestations of character paws.
Abstract: A number of philosophers from Hume on have claimed that it does not make sense to blame people for acting badly unless their bad acts were rooted in their characters. In this paper, I distinguish a stronger and a weaker version of this claim. The claim is false, I argue, if it is taken to mean that agents can only be blamed for bad acts when those acts are manifestations of character paws. However, what is both true and important is the weaker claim that an act is not blameworthy unless it is rooted in some enduring aspect or aspects of the agent's character that may or may not be flaws, and that, if flaws, may or may not be bad in the same way that the act itself is.
9 citations