Abstract
There are three attractive principles that are held by many desert theorists.
(1) Character-Desert Principle: A person’s character is a ground of moral desert.
(2) Limited Responsibility for Character Principle: Persons are not fully morally responsible for their character.
(3) Moral Responsibility Principle: If something grounds moral desert in a person, then she is fully morally responsible for it.
Each of these principles is backed by some strong intuitions or arguments. In this paper, I argue that we should reject the Moral Responsibility Principle. This principle is not supported by an analysis of act-based desert. This rejection is in line with the observation that desert is affected by a number of factors that are outside of an individual’s control, e.g., degree of autonomy and desire content. It also fits with an explanation of desert in terms of fittingness.