Think of the children: on the responsibility of children and other evolving agents

Abstract

On the margins of normative competence, matters of responsibility become ambiguous. Can a 6-year-old be considered responsible for stealing? Is a 14-year-old blameworthy for plagiarizing on a test? Parents, educators, and philosophers provide different and seemingly conflicting answers to these types of questions. The ages at which children can be considered legally culpable also vary widely between democratic states. One reason for this is that, for evolving agents, it is difficult to assess whether they are insufficiently able to do what is expected of them, or whether they are able but unwilling to do what is expected of them. This gives rise to what I will refer to as a ‘can’t-or-won’t dilemma’. The two options are to either exculpate the person on the basis of insufficient ability, or to consider them responsible for wrongdoing. But neither option seems entirely satisfactory or appropriate in the light of uncertainty about a person’s level of normative competence. Recent alternative approaches to responsibility aim to address this problem by providing accounts of responsibility which do not rely on capacity criteria. On these accounts so called ‘marginal agents’ are in some way considered responsible for what they do. I discuss these solutions and argue that they do not resolve or dissolve the dilemma. Instead, their real contribution lies in how they can alleviate the dilemma. This insight helps move the debate forward, and has implications for how we think about adults too.