Loading field map
When is it fair to hold someone morally responsible for what they do? The question seems simple, but it has driven one of philosophy's most persistent debates. At its core lies a tension: we want to hold people accountable for their actions, yet we also recognize that those actions are shaped by factors beyond their control—genetics, upbringing, social circumstances, and perhaps even the laws of physics. The history of inquiry into moral responsibility is a history of competing attempts to specify the conditions that justify blame, praise, punishment, and reward.
For centuries, the debate was organized around a single question: does determinism—the thesis that every event is causally necessitated by prior events—rule out moral responsibility? Three classical positions emerged.
Compatibilism (active since antiquity) answers no. Compatibilists argue that determinism is compatible with responsibility because what matters is not whether an action was caused, but whether the agent acted freely in a specific sense: they were not coerced, not ignorant, and could have done otherwise if they had chosen differently. This "conditional analysis" of free will—you could have done otherwise if you had wanted to—was the dominant view among early modern philosophers like Hobbes and Hume. For compatibilists, responsibility tracks the agent's control and knowledge, not the metaphysical absence of causation.
Libertarianism (also ancient) answers yes: determinism does threaten responsibility, but only because determinism is false. Libertarians hold that free will requires the ability to choose among genuinely open alternatives, and that human agents possess such a power—often called "agent causation" or "contra-causal freedom." On this view, responsibility depends on the agent being the ultimate source of their action, not merely a link in a causal chain. Libertarianism thus rejects the compatibilist's deflationary account of freedom, insisting that genuine responsibility requires indeterminism.
Hard Determinism (emerging in the 18th century) agrees with libertarianism that determinism and responsibility are incompatible, but draws the opposite conclusion: determinism is true, so moral responsibility is an illusion. Hard determinists like Baron d'Holbach argued that since every action is necessitated, no one truly deserves blame or praise. This position directly challenges both compatibilism (by denying that compatibilist freedom is enough) and libertarianism (by denying indeterminism). The classical triad thus established three poles: compatibilism affirms responsibility under determinism, libertarianism affirms responsibility only if determinism is false, and hard determinism denies responsibility because determinism is true.
In 1962, P.F. Strawson's essay "Freedom and Resentment" transformed the debate. Strawson argued that the classical focus on metaphysical freedom was misplaced. Instead, he shifted attention to our actual practices of holding responsible—the "reactive attitudes" such as resentment, gratitude, forgiveness, and indignation that we naturally feel toward others. These attitudes, Strawson claimed, are not contingent on a theoretical belief in indeterminism; they are woven into the fabric of human interpersonal relationships. Even if determinism were true, we could not simply abandon these attitudes without ceasing to relate to each other as persons.
Reactive Attitude Compatibilism thus reframes the entire problem: moral responsibility is not a metaphysical property to be discovered but a feature of our social practices. The question becomes not whether determinism allows responsibility, but whether the reactive attitudes are rationally sustainable given determinism. Strawson argued they are, because the attitudes are not grounded in a theoretical commitment to indeterminism but in our natural human engagement. This move effectively sidelines the classical debate by making the social practice primary. It also provides a new foundation for compatibilism: responsibility is justified by its role in human life, not by a metaphysical analysis of free will.
Strawson's work opened the door for more nuanced compatibilist theories that addressed lingering problems, especially cases involving manipulation and the agent's history.
Semi-Compatibilism, developed by John Martin Fischer in the 1990s, accepts Strawson's social-practice orientation but makes a crucial distinction. Fischer separates the question of "alternative possibilities" (could the agent have done otherwise?) from the question of "guidance control" (did the agent act on their own reasons?). Semi-compatibilism argues that moral responsibility requires only guidance control, not the ability to choose otherwise. This narrows the compatibilist condition: an agent is responsible if they act from their own mechanism of practical reasoning, even if determinism ensures they could not have done otherwise. Semi-compatibilism thus refines Reactive Attitude Compatibilism by specifying exactly what kind of control matters, and it directly responds to libertarian objections that compatibilist freedom is too thin.
Historicism, championed by philosophers like John Martin Fischer and Mark Ravizza (in a different sense) and later by Manuel Vargas and others, addresses a different challenge: manipulation cases. Imagine an agent whose desires are implanted by a neuroscientist—does that agent bear responsibility for actions flowing from those desires? Classical compatibilism, focused on current psychological states, might say yes if the agent acts without coercion. Historicism insists that the agent's history matters: responsibility requires that the agent's values and character were formed in a way that is appropriately their own, not through manipulation or indoctrination. This adds a historical condition to the compatibilist account, distinguishing it from both Semi-Compatibilism (which focuses on current guidance control) and Reactive Attitude Compatibilism (which focuses on social responses). Historicism thus preserves compatibilism's core while absorbing the worry that compatibilist conditions are too easily satisfied by manipulated agents.
By the early 2000s, a new wave of skepticism emerged that challenged both compatibilist and libertarian frameworks. Hard Incompatibilism, articulated by Derk Pereboom, argues that moral responsibility of the kind required for basic desert (the idea that someone genuinely deserves blame or praise) is incompatible with both determinism and indeterminism. If determinism is true, agents lack the control needed for desert; if indeterminism is true, actions become random and equally undermine control. Hard Incompatibilism thus revives the hard determinist conclusion—that we are not morally responsible in the desert sense—but broadens the argument to cover any scenario, deterministic or not. It directly rejects the compatibilist claim that guidance control or historical conditions are sufficient for desert, and it denies the libertarian claim that indeterminism could restore control. Hard Incompatibilism coexists with earlier skepticism but is more comprehensive, drawing on empirical findings from neuroscience and psychology to argue that our ordinary concept of responsibility is empirically unsupported.
Revisionism, developed by Manuel Vargas in the mid-2000s, offers a different response to the skeptical challenge. Rather than eliminating responsibility (as hard incompatibilism does) or defending the ordinary concept (as compatibilism does), revisionism proposes that we should revise our concept of moral responsibility in light of scientific and philosophical pressures. Vargas argues that the ordinary concept may be committed to libertarian free will, but we can replace it with a more empirically plausible concept that still serves important social functions—such as guiding behavior and expressing moral norms. Revisionism thus absorbs the skeptical critique while preserving the practice of holding responsible, but on new terms. It differs from compatibilism by acknowledging that the ordinary concept is flawed, and it differs from hard incompatibilism by advocating conceptual change rather than elimination. Revisionism is a direct response to the empirical challenges raised by hard incompatibilism, seeking a middle path.
Today, the debate over moral responsibility is more pluralistic than ever. The leading frameworks—Compatibilism (in its various forms), Libertarianism, Hard Incompatibilism, and Revisionism—remain active and in live disagreement. What they agree on is that the conditions for responsibility involve some form of control and epistemic access (knowledge of what one is doing). They also broadly agree that the social function of responsibility practices matters: even skeptics like Pereboom argue that we can retain forward-looking practices like deterrence and moral education without desert-based blame.
Where they disagree is sharp. Compatibilists (including Semi-Compatibilists and Historicists) hold that the ordinary concept of responsibility is largely defensible; they argue that guidance control and historical conditions are sufficient for desert. Libertarians insist that genuine responsibility requires indeterministic free will, and they continue to develop accounts of agent causation that avoid randomness. Hard Incompatibilists maintain that no form of control, compatibilist or libertarian, can ground basic desert; they advocate for a responsibility-free moral framework. Revisionists occupy a middle ground, arguing that the concept itself should be reshaped rather than defended or eliminated.
The most active disagreements today concern the role of history (can a manipulated agent be responsible?), the nature of control (is guidance control enough?), and the empirical adequacy of our concepts (do neuroscience and psychology show that we lack free will?). These questions ensure that the subfield remains a dynamic conversation, with each framework continually refined in response to the others.