Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-7lfxl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-29T09:17:58.221Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Talking to others' selves: Why a valuational paradigm of agency fails to provide an adequate theoretical framework for moral responsibility, social accountability, and legal liability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2018

Tobias A. Mattei
Tobias A. Mattei*
Affiliation:
Neurosurgery and Spine Specialists, Eastern Maine Medical Center, Bangor, ME 04401 tobiasmattei@gmail.com https://www.emmc.org/Providers/Mattei,-Tobias-A-,-MD.aspx https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tobias_Mattei
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this commentary, I highlight the importance of a proper discussion of the pragmatic implications of John Doris's paradigm for allocation of personal responsibility proposed in his new book Talking to Our Selves. By employing some classic concepts of the American common law tradition, I discuss why Doris's valuational understanding of agency fails to provide an adequate framework for moral responsibility, social accountability, and legal liability.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 41 , 2018 , e51
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alex, K. (2008) Vicarious criminal liability and the constitutional dimensions of Pinkerton. American University Law Review 57:585–639.Google Scholar
Brown v. Kendall (1850) 60 Mass. (6 Cush.) 292. Available at: http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/twiki/pub/EngLegalHist/MitchellAllestry/Brown_v_Kendall.pdf.Google Scholar
Carson, C. D & Felthous, A. R. (2003) Mens rea. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 21:559–62.Google Scholar
Cary, P. (2007) A brief history of the concept of free will: Issues that are and are not germane to legal reasoning. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 25:165–81.Google Scholar
Doris, J. M. (2015b). Talking to our selves: Reflection, ignorance, and agency. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Duff, R. A. (1990) Intention, agency and criminal liability: Philosophy of action and the criminal. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gared, H. J. (1983) Master's liability for the torts of his servant. The Florida Bar Journal LVII:597–600.Google Scholar
King's Bench (1466) Y.B.M. 6 Edw. IV, folio 7, placitum 18. Available at: http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-prosser/development-of-liability/hulle-v-orynge-the-case-of-thorns/ [accessed on 6 February 2017].Google Scholar
Pinkerton v. United States (1946) 328 U.S. 640.Google Scholar
Reagan, R. (1987) Iran arms and Contra aid controversy. PBS. Available at: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/reagan-iran-contra/.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. H. & Grall, J. A. (1983) Element analysis in defining criminal liability: The model penal code and beyond. Stanford Law Review 35:681–762.Google Scholar
Waller, B. N. (2011) Against moral responsibility. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Weaver, R. M. (1948) Ideas have consequences. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar