#moral-responsibility

#moral-responsibility

Billionaires are often lauded in America, but some condemn them as evil simply for being billionaires. This raises the moral issue of whether a person can be morally good and a billionaire. The issue is whether, in general, you could be a billionaire and still plausibly be a good person. Proper resolution of this issue requires determining which moral theory (if any) is correct. But we can rely to some degree on our moral intuitions and some basic logic.

Kant's account of evil makes three key claims with major consequences for moral agency and responsibility. First, the distinction between good and evil lies in the will (R 6:59). Unlike prior theories that locate evil in natural inclinations or external circumstances, Kant situates evil in the will's choice of maxims. This reveals that earlier theories misidentify both evil's source and its effect on agency, leading to misguided remedies (R 6:59).

"We start walking up to the Capitol, and we get the news that Pence betrayed us. He had way more power, and he wasn't willing to exercise it. And when Pence betrayed us is when we decided to storm the Capitol. (...) We just pushed and pushed and pushed and pushed, and yelled 'Go!' and yelled 'Charge!' And on and on and on, we just pushed and pushed and pushed-and we got in." (Jenny Cudd, recorded live video)

The Stephen J. White Prize, named after the late Dr. Stephen J. White, recognizes outstanding work by junior philosophers, highlighting critical themes in moral responsibility and practical reasoning.