MORAL RESPONSIBILITY AND OMISSIONS

Abstract

Frankfurt‐type examples seem to show that agents can be morally responsible for their actions and omissions even if they could not have done otherwise. Fischer and Ravizza's influential account of moral responsibility is largely based on such examples. I examine a problem with their account of responsibility in cases where we fail to act. The solution to this problem has a surprising and far‐reaching implication concerning the construction of successful Frankfurt‐type examples. I argue that the role of the counterfactual intervener in such examples can only be filled by a rational agent.