A point of contention in recent discussions of the epistemic condition of moral responsibility is whether culpable ignorance must trace to akratic belief mismanagement. Neil Levy has recently defended an akrasia requirement by arguing that only an akratic agent has the capacity rationally to comply with epistemic expectations the violation of which contributes to her ignorance. In this paper I show that Levy’s argument is unsound. It is possible to have the relevant rational capacity in the absence of akrasia. I also argue that the internalist account of rationality that does much of the work in his argument is problematic.
|Title of host publication||Ethics|
|Number of pages||15|
|Publication status||Published - Oct 2014|