![]() One is what I shall call the choice theory of excuse, according to which one is excused for the doing of a wrongful action because and only because at the moment of such action's performance, one did not have sufficient capacity or opportunity to make the choice to do otherwise. In this paper I wish to isolate two theories of excuse, each of which instantiates its own distinctive theory of responsibility. Nowhere has this thought been more evident than in the century-old focus of criminal law theoreticians on the excuse of insanity, a focus that could not be justified by the importance of the excuse itself. ) insight into the nature of responsibility itself. The thought is that if we understand why we excuse in certain situations but not others, we will have also gained a much more general (. The current preoccupation with the theory of excuse in criminal law scholarship can be given a similar justification, for the excuses are the royal road to theories of responsibility generally. ( shrink)įreud justified his extensive theorizing about dreams by the observation that they were “the royal road” to something much more general: namely, our unconscious mental life. For these reasons, I recommend that future discussions of accessibilism focus on the ‘facts about’ disambiguation. Just as only the ‘facts about’ disambiguation escapes the regress objection, it is also the only disambiguation which enjoys genuine support from the motivations for accessibilism. But I will argue this appearance depends on a mistake. We will see that these motivations appear to support each disambiguation. After this, I discuss the relationships between the motivations for accessibilism and these two disambiguations. ![]() I show that this regress objection only threatens the ‘very things’ disambiguation of accessibilism, not the ‘facts about’ disambiguation. ) accessibilism absurdly implies that an infinite regress of facts, each more complex than the last, must be accessible to the subject. I then discuss Ralph Wedgwood’s (2002: 350-352) argument that (. I first show that this phrase may either refer to the very things accessible to the subject, or instead to the facts about which things are accessible to her. I argue that misunderstandings of accessibilism have hinged on a failure to appreciate an ambiguity in the phrase ‘what is accessible to the subject’. Coach Holochuck now enters his fifth season as Head Coach of the Jarvis Christian College Bulldogs.Accessibilism is a version of epistemic internalism on which justification is determined by what is accessible to the subject. ![]() ![]() Coach Holochuck experience consist of 4 years as an assistant at Texas College helping lead the Steers to four straight Red River Conference Tournaments. Coach Holochuck then transferred to Texas College in 2006 where he was a 2 year starter for the Texas College Steers Baseball Program.Ĭoach Holochuck has his Bachelors of Science in Physical Education from Texas College and Masters of Science from Western Kentucky in Athletic Administrations. He played baseball for Chabot College in Hayward, CA from 2004 to 2006 where he participated in two super regionals. He graduated from Arroyo High School in 2003. Coach Holochuck is a native of San Lorenzo California. He is determined to run a program in which everyone is motivated to being successful in the classroom, community and on field. Coach Holochuck is dedicated to creating a culture of winning and excellence. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |