In this essay, I will discuss my belief that Susan Wolf would argue an individual is morally responsible for actions caused by implicit bias. Furthermore, I will address the difference between the conclusions drawn by Wolf with Robin Zheng’s.
In Susan Wolf’s “Sanity and the Metaphysics of Responsibility”, Wolf proposed the sane deep-self view. She redefined the criteria for sanity by quoting M’Naughten Rule that “a person is sane if (1) he knows what he is doing and (2) he knows that what he is doing is either right or wrong.” (p.55) Next, she introduced the deep-self view by adopting Frankfurt’s and Taylor’s idea of one’s first-order desires should be governed by one’s second-order desires. Only then, she supplemented the deep-self view with the condition of sanity and …show more content…
On responsibility as “attributability”, she defines the term as we are morally responsible for our actions if and only if these actions reflect our deep-self, and values; whereas, on responsibility as “accountability”, she defines it as we are morally responsible for our actions when it is appropriate for others to hold us accountable for our actions. (p.2) Zheng suggested the notion that one should be accountable for implicit bias, but not attributable for them. Moreover, Zheng reconstructed “The Simple Argument”, which is based on two intuitions: (a) The Distinctive Intuition and (b) The Endorsement Intuition. (a) states that we are responsible for our actions in a way that young children and animals are not, while (b) asserted that there is a moral difference between someone, whom upon reflection, endorse the influence of implicit bias and someone who would reject it. Here’s the Simple Argument: “ (1) We are attributively responsible for our actions when we are in special relation to
In Susan Wolf’s “Sanity and the Metaphysics of Responsibility”, Wolf proposed the sane deep-self view. She redefined the criteria for sanity by quoting M’Naughten Rule that “a person is sane if (1) he knows what he is doing and (2) he knows that what he is doing is either right or wrong.” (p.55) Next, she introduced the deep-self view by adopting Frankfurt’s and Taylor’s idea of one’s first-order desires should be governed by one’s second-order desires. Only then, she supplemented the deep-self view with the condition of sanity and …show more content…
On responsibility as “attributability”, she defines the term as we are morally responsible for our actions if and only if these actions reflect our deep-self, and values; whereas, on responsibility as “accountability”, she defines it as we are morally responsible for our actions when it is appropriate for others to hold us accountable for our actions. (p.2) Zheng suggested the notion that one should be accountable for implicit bias, but not attributable for them. Moreover, Zheng reconstructed “The Simple Argument”, which is based on two intuitions: (a) The Distinctive Intuition and (b) The Endorsement Intuition. (a) states that we are responsible for our actions in a way that young children and animals are not, while (b) asserted that there is a moral difference between someone, whom upon reflection, endorse the influence of implicit bias and someone who would reject it. Here’s the Simple Argument: “ (1) We are attributively responsible for our actions when we are in special relation to