Moral responsibility begins with a theory of mind, but to hold a being responsible requires knowing that they know a) they've caused harm b) they should avoid causing harm. If those points cannot be known with reasonable certainty any act must be treated as amoral.
Moral responsibility begins with a theory of mind, but to hold a being responsible requires knowing that they know a) they've caused harm b) they should avoid causing harm. If those points cannot be known with reasonable certainty any act must be treated as amoral.
I’m not sure if this is meant to imply disagreement. If so what part of the argument do you disagree with?
It's a framework for understanding the issue, no comparison implied.
What do you think of the framework used in the paper?
I'll read it when i get home. I have quite a few to-read tabs open.