Responsibility and Desert

In Responsibility & Desert, Michael McKenna defends a theory of moral responsibility that explains the relationship between a wrongdoer and those who blame or punish on analogy with a conversation between speakers of a shared language. In central cases, blame functions like a conversational reply to another whose act bears a meaning revealing the morally objectionable quality of her will. But such blaming responses can be harmful. McKenna defends the thesis that they can nevertheless be justified in terms of desert, and he resists several criticisms of desert-based justifications for blame and punishment.

Responsibility & 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 person and one who blames her 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? Desert is widely regarded as the proper basis for blame and punishment. But is this a philosophically defensible position? Philosopher Michael McKenna explores just what desert is within the domain of moral responsibility, when conceptualized within the framework of the conversational theory. He does not offer an unqualified defence, but he does offer a best case for treating desert as the proper basis for the communicative character of blame and punishment. To do so, he takes up familiar challenges to desert and retribution. Does deserved blame and punishment commit us to the non-instrumental 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? McKenna does not shy away from accepting hard truths about appeal to desert, but he does show that many of the most damning indictments of it are misguided.