Raikka's subtraction of the control criterion severs moral responsibility from its action-theoretic foundations, collapsing the distinction between responsibility and mere causal implication.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Action-theoretic foundations(as the grounding for moral responsibility): The basic philosophical ideas about how actions work and what makes something count as something you actually did (rather than something that just happened to you).
Causal implication(as what the statement distinguishes from responsibility): When one thing causes or produces another—for example, if you push a domino and it falls, there's a causal relationship, but that doesn't mean you're responsible for every consequence that follows.
Control criterion(as a requirement for moral responsibility): The idea that you can only be held morally responsible for something if you had control over it—basically, you're only responsible for your actions if you could have actually chosen to do something different.
Raikka(as a philosopher referenced in ethics): A philosopher who has written about moral responsibility and how we decide who deserves blame or praise for their actions.

Based on where you are in your exploration