My current research is focused primarily on the relationship between responsibility and awareness, where the guiding question is whether blameless ignorance excuses.  The answer to this question has implications for the epistemic condition on tracing, whether culpable ignorance can mitigate blameworthiness, and skepticism about moral responsibility and blameworthiness more generally. I have also written on the relationship between voluntariness and responsibility as well as the ethics of blame. Below are some papers I’ve published on these topics.

Reasonable Foreseeability and Blameless Ignorance

Philosophical Studies (2017) 174(6): 1561 - 1581


This paper draws attention to a fundamental problem for a version of the tracing strategy defended by Gideon Rosen 2004 and Fischer and Tognazzini 2009. I argue that versions of the tracing strategy that require reasonable foreseeability (rather than actual foresight) are in tension with the view that blameless ignorance excuses. A stronger version of the tracing strategy (i.e., one that requires actual foresight) is consistent with the view that blameless ignorance excuses and is therefore preferable for those tracing theorists who wish to continue maintaining that it does.

Hypocrisy and the Standing to Blame
(with Kyle G. Fritz)

Forthcoming in
Pacific Philosophical Quarterly


Hypocrites are often thought to lack the standing to blame others for faults similar to their own. Although this claim is widely accepted, it is seldom argued for. We offer an argument for the claim that nonhypocrisy is a necessary condition on the standing to blame. We first offer a novel, dispositional account of hypocrisy. Our account captures the commonsense view that hypocrisy involves making an unjustified exception of oneself. This exception-making involves a rejection of the impartiality of morality and thereby a rejection of the equality of persons, which we argue grounds the standing to blame others.

Answerability, Blameworthiness, and History

Philosophia (2014) 42(2): 469-486


This paper focuses on a non-volitional account that has received a good deal of attention recently, Angela Smith's rational relations view. I argue that without historical conditions on blameworthiness for the non-voluntary non-volitionist accounts like Smith’s are (i) vulnerable to manipulation cases and (ii) fail to make sufficient room for the distinction between badness and blameworthiness. Towards the end of the paper I propose conditions aimed to supplement these deficiencies. The conditions that I propose are tailored to suit non-volitional accounts of blameworthiness. Unlike some volitional historical conditions on blameworthiness, the conditions that I propose do not require that the person have exercised voluntary control (e.g., via choices or decisions) over the acquisition of her attitudes or values.