Responsibility and Desert

Abstract Responsibility and Desert advances a conversational theory of moral responsibility that relies upon desert as the normative basis for blame and punishment. A conversational theory understands the relationship between a blameworthy wrongdoer and those who hold her to account by blaming to be similar to the relationship between competent speakers engaged in a conversational exchange. Blame can therefore be appraised for being meaningful as a reply to a culpable party’s conduct. But meaningfulness alone is inadequate to justify blame and punishment. Might one appeal to fairness, reasonableness, or just utility? Perhaps. But desert is widely regarded as the proper basis for blame and punishment. Well, is it? Responsibility and Desert explores just what desert is within the domain of moral responsibility when conceptualized within the framework of the conversational theory. It does not offer an unqualified defense, but it does offer a best case for treating desert as the proper basis for the communicative character of blame and punishment. To do so, familiar challenges to desert and retribution are taken up. Does deserved blame and punishment commit us to the noninstrumental goodness of harms to the blameworthy and criminally culpable? Is this mere vengeance? Does it also commit us to extremely harsh treatment in response to extremely egregious wrongdoing? Responsibility and Desert does not shy away from accepting hard truths about appeal to desert, but it does show that many of the most damning indictments of it are misguided.