International Journal of Arts and Humanities (IJAH)

A theoretical approach to the practice of holding one another morally responsible shows that we should expect “could not have done otherwise” to excuse a faulty action only sometimes. Holding someone morally responsible for their actions is much like holding employees responsible for doing their jobs, or holding students responsible for learning material. In each case, “failures” can be excused by an inability to do otherwise, if the inability is not relevant to the purpose for which the person is being held responsible. But an inability to do otherwise will not be excused if it is an inability to successfully pursue that purpose. This theory-driven rejection of the Principle of Alternative Possibilities fits well with a “quality of will” approach to moral responsibility. It also places a dialectical burden on the defender of PAP to come up with an alternative theory.