Abstract
ABSTRACTWhether seen after a vehement denunciation of one's former values or a subtle change of heart, it is often thought that significant change to one's evaluative character could undermine responsibility for past wrongdoing. In this article, I explore this intuition by analyzing Angela Smith's concept of “responsibility as answerability.” I introduce an alteration/replacement distinction to define the limits of answerability over time. These limits are then further qualified by drawing on Delia Graff's work on Sorites type cases to argue that persons are answerable for past wrongdoing if they remain “saliently similar” in some relevant respects
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
