In A Metaphysics for Freedom, Helen Steward argues that agents settle things when they act, and that in order for agents to settle things, the universe must be indeterministic. Steward suggests a ‘weak’ account of settling, on which settling is compatible with determinism, but she rightly claims that this weak account is unacceptable. In this paper, I argue that the weak account of settling is not the best account of settling available to the compatibilist. In the first part of this (...) paper, I present a ‘strong’ compatibilist account of settling, and argue that this account avoids the problems faced by the weak account. In the second part of this paper, I argue against Steward's claim that compatibilist accounts of settling must depend on the truth of causal theories of action. (shrink)

Suppose that virtue is intrinsically morally good, and that we have a pro tanto moral reason to act in ways which promote it. Further suppose that the failure of agents to receive what they deserve is intrinsically morally bad, and that we have a pro tanto moral reason not to act in ways which frustrate desert. When we are deciding whether to encourage others to make altruistic sacrifices, these two pro tanto moral reasons come into conflict. To encourage such sacrifices (...) promotes virtue; it also causes virtuous agents to be worse off, preventing them from receiving their deserts. I argue that these effects on desert can reduce the moral desirability of promoting altruism so significantly as to make it morally wrong. This has implications for public policy, since certain practical questions turn on the extent to which we ought to rely on altruism as a means of solving social problems. (shrink)

Many recent discussions of psychopaths have centered on the question of whether they can express ill-will when they act, a capacity which is generally taken to be required for moral blameworthiness. However, the debate over ill-will currently stands at an impasse; the participants are in substantial agreement as to which attitudes psychopaths can express, but disagree as to which attitudes count as ill-will. I argue that this impasse reflects an underlying, implicit disagreement as to which features of actions are wrong-making. (...) By uncovering this implicit disagreement and addressing it head-on, we should be able to break the impasse. (shrink)

According to an influential family of views, agents are virtuous when and because they possess the correct attitudes towards the actual good and bad. But there are multiple ways of conceptualizing the actual good and bad, and attitudes towards some conceptualizations of the good and bad seem to be irrelevant to moral character. It is deceptively difficult to provide a theoretical rationale for distinguishing between those conceptualizations of the good and bad that seem to be relevant and those that do (...) not: I argue that a previous attempt to provide such a rationale fails, as do a number of seemingly promising alternatives. This problem merits further attention not only because it shows that certain theoretical accounts of character are incomplete, but because it is likely to interfere with our ability to evaluate certain real-world agents, who care about the actual good conceptualized in certain ways but not in others. Since a generalized version of the problem of conceptualization also affects other “intrinsic” accounts of virtue and vice, I argue that we must either solve this problem or abandon such accounts. (shrink)