Abstract
If Kevin’s kleptomania is so severe that it produces in him a literally irresistible desire to steal, then there is a straightforward sense in which he couldn’t help himself (at the time he steals). This sort of severe kleptomania is plausibly thought to excuse Kevin’s behavior on the grounds that his behavior was not sufficiently under his control. So, it looks like some sort of “control condition” will be a necessary component of any plausible theory of moral responsibility. Similarly, if Kevin’s friends are planning a surprise party for him but they neglect to tell Dan that it’s a surprise and Dan subsequently talks openly with Kevin about the party, Dan’s ignorance plausibly excuses his behavior. Since he didn’t know (and, we suppose, could not have been expected to
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
