Sarah Köglsperger

Attitudes and emotions are commonly taken not to be under our direct voluntary control. Thus, it also seems impossible for there to be obligations to have certain attitudes. Against this, proponents of attitudinal obligations argue that we have sufficient, even if not voluntary, control over our attitudes to be appropriately held responsible for them and that this implies that there are attitudinal obligations. Call this the Responsibility Argument for Attitudinal Obligations. In this paper, I discuss the Responsibility Argument as a response to the Control Problem. I argue that the Responsibility Argument fails. Its main problem is that the type of control that we have over our attitudes and emotions, according to its proponents, is always indirect. Accordingly, there can only be obligations to perform certain actions that tend to bring about certain attitudes, but no obligations to have certain attitudes.

Forgiveness presupposes that there is someone responsible to forgive for some wrongdoing. An innocent person who hasn’t committed any wrong or who is not responsible for his actions is not blameworthy. Our anger would be misplaced if there is nobody or nothing to be angry at in the first place. The aim of the paper is to answer whether Taylor Swift’s song “Innocent”, which was a response to the infamous incident of Kanye West interrupting Swift’s acceptance speech at the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards, could be seen as an instance of forgiveness – even though innocence normally precludes the possibility of forgiveness.