Abstract
Judgments of actor responsibility usually depend on attributions of actor intentions. In some circumstances, though, actor intention or even both intention and responsibility may be considered irrelevant. This raises the question of whether it is possible for an intentional actor to not be held responsible for the consequences of his or her act. This article claims that the hunger strike represents just such a possibility, mainly because (i) the actor is presented as having no choice, (ii) the stance of commentators (especially the media) is influential in shaping attributions of intentionality, and (iii) a significant time interval exists between the initiation of the strike and its effects.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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.
