In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

  • Sanity and Irresponsibility
  • P. Eddy Wilson (bio)
Abstract

Taking up the idea that sanity is a necessary condition for responsibility, Susan Wolf sets forth two criteria for determining whether an actor is sane. I argue that the second criterion is inappropriate for this determination since it invokes some hidden axiological standard. I reexamine a case study that Wolf describes and arrive at a different judgment about the responsibility of the actor. I argue that the foremost criterion for determining whether an actor is sane is functional rather than axiological. The theory of responsibility, rather than the notion of sanity, must do the work of appraising the value of an actors’ behavior, and that must be done in light of the fact that responsible moral agents enjoy varying degrees of sanity.

Introduction

In his article “The Legal Concept of Insanity,” Herbert Fingarette (1982) has said that “so far as there is insanity there cannot be [responsibility]” (203). Here insanity is understood as behavioral dysfunction. Fingarette also argues that “Insanity is failure to respond relevantly to what is essentially relevant by virtue of a grave defect” (203). Fingarette has invoked a widespread dogma: if one is insane, then he or she is not legally responsible. In moral discourse a similar dogma has been widely accepted: if one is insane, then he or she is not responsible; and if one is responsible, then he or she is sane. That is logically equivalent to the statement that all responsible agents are sane agents. If there are some criteria for the identification of the insane, then an actor who meets these criteria would be identifiable as a nonresponsible actor. In this essay I shall be interested in clarifying our notion of the criteria for identifying nonresponsible actors.

My essay begins by examining Susan Wolf’s discussion of the logical relationship between sanity and responsibility. In the first section I discuss the criteria some philosophers have invoked for determining whether an individual is sane. I would agree that sanity is a necessary condition for determining an agent’s responsibility, but I disagree with Wolf’s understanding of what constitutes sanity. In a second section I ask readers to test their own intuitions regarding a hypothetical case study discussed by Wolf. In a final section I discuss ways that we might revise the sanity condition for the purpose of determining who is responsible and nonresponsible. The revision that I call for would take into account the fact that we may infuse the criteria for determining the sanity of agents with idiosyncratic or culturally biased norms.

1. Sanity and Responsibility: Wolf’s Argument for a Logical Relation

In her article “Sanity and the Metaphysics of Responsibility,” Susan Wolf (1989) argued that [End Page 293] there is a logical relationship between sanity and responsibility. Wolf follows Harry Frankfurt, Gary Watson, and Charles Taylor in adopting the notion, with depth psychologists, that one has a “deep self.” This notion sets the stage for a hierarchical analysis of human behavior. Wolf argues that

all these philosophers [i.e., Frankfurt, Watson, and Taylor] seem to be saying that the key to responsibility lies in the fact that responsible agents are those for whom it is not just the case that their actions are within the control of their wills, but also the case that their wills are within the control of their selves in some deeper sense.

(140)

In Wolf’s view, one not only chooses as one wills, but one also wills as one wills; and one who has the ability to will as one wills has a deep self. 1 Wolf argues that one is responsible for his or her behavior only if his or her deep self is sane, i.e., sane in the relevant sense (145). Of course, as Wolf admits, one would have to rely upon some identifiable criteria to determine the sanity of a deep self. Whether an individual’s deep self is sane enough to be responsible or whether it is not needs to be examined more thoroughly.

If we use sanity as a sortal, then we must insure that we have a clear grasp of the criteria for determining whether an individual is sane...

Share