Abstract

As the title indicates, This paper represents an examination of the relationships obtaining among the concepts of foresight, Intention, And responsibility. It begins with a critical analysis of the legal and quasi-Moral principle of the resumption of intentionality (i.E., An agent is presumed to have intended the "foreseeable" consequences of her intentional actions). It is shown that, While legally indispensable, It will simply not withstand philosophical scrutiny for purposes of ascribing moral responsibility. I proceed eventually to an evaluation of a proposal which would make foresight itself a sufficient--Though not a necessary--Condition for the ascription of responsibility. The strengths and weaknesses of such a proposal are assessed within both legal and moral contexts. Having distinguished between what I term the "hard-Liners" vs. The "soft-Liners" to the debate, I give my reasons for aligning myself with the hard-Liners (i.E., Those who might be sympathetically inclined to my alternate proposal)