According to some ordinary understanding of moral responsibility, moral responsibility does really have a historical dimension:whether an agent can take responsibility for his action not only depends on whether he can have control of the action in performing it, but depends on the causal origins of the action also. Some theorists thus argue that moral responsibility does not only need to meet the condition of freedom, but must meet the alleged "condition of ultimate responsibility" too. However, if the latter condition implies that the agent must be able to take responsibility for the formation of his character or his self,then moral responsibility would be ultimately impossible, as Galen Strawson argues. This paper is devoted to examining Strawson’s argument for this claim, and trying to show why we need not accept his interpretation of this condition.
