The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Mark of Responsibility
Abstract
This paper tackles three common misconceptions about responsibility. The first misconception is that it is against our interests to be responsible for our actions. The second is that our responsibility for our actions is fixed at the time when we act. The third is that we can only be responsible to someone in particular, not responsible full stop. The three misconceptions turn out to be related, and disabusing ourselves of them helps us to rediscover the most fundamental point of the courtroom trial.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“we work with a revised and modified list of four forms of responsibility that are particularly relevant - yet not limited to - the context of automation and artificial intelligence: culpability, moral accountability, public accountability, and active responsibility.”
From Four Responsibility Gaps with Artificial Intelligence: Why they Matter and How to Address them (2021) · cites this paper as Gardner, 2007
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Four Responsibility Gaps with Artificial Intelligence: Why they Matter and How to Address them
Santoni de Sio, F., & Mecacci, G. (2021) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-021-00450-x · Cited by 490
Verdiesen, I., de Sio, F. S., & Dignum, V. (2020) · Minds and Machines · doi:10.1007/s11023-020-09532-9 · Cited by 79
Tadros, V. (2021) · Philosophical Studies · doi:10.1007/s11098-021-01611-6 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Gardner, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Gardner, John
- ORCID
- Gardner, John
- Venue
- Offences and Defences
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 2007-11-08
- Pages
- 177-200
- OpenAlex
- W3124043938
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Oxford University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Free Will and Agency
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal processes and jurisprudence
- Keywords
- moral responsibility, responsibility for action, criminal liability
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
