 say that S's action is a result of her character is to say that S's character is an important part, perhaps the most important part, of 10 the story. Taken this way, (c') is not too strong at all, but rather reflects our common sense attitudes about the sources of human action. The fact is, we cite character in explanations of human behavior all the time, as when we say that he made the remark because he is insensitive (as opposed to having a bad day), or that she failed to spend the money because she is cheap (as opposed to hard up for cash at the moment).xviii Feinberg's analysis reveals that such explanations are implied in attributions of blame, or at least in attributions of a certain sort of blame. And this implies that attributions of blame (of that special sort) will inherit the pragmatics of causal explanations. Clearly, any action will be the result of a number of factors, including a person's character. But sometimes we want to say that character is particularly salient-that it is an important part, perhaps the most important part, of the story behind why the person acted as he did. b. A general theory of credit attribution. Feinberg's account of moral blaming can easily be broadened in two ways. First, I have already noted that the counterpart of blame for an action is credit for an action. In fact, we can use credit as the general term, and talk about positive credit (i.e. praise) and negative credit (i.e. blame) for an action. Second, there are kinds of credit other than moral.xix For example, we credit athletes for athletic feats and thinkers for intellectual ones. Accordingly, I propose the following as a general theory of credit. A person S deserves credit of kind K for action A only if a. A has value of kind K, b. A can be ascribed to S, and c. A reveals S's K-relevant character. Alternatively: S's K-relevant character is an important necessary part of the total set of causal factors that give rise to S's doing A. Two examples will illustrate this account. Case 4. Ken Griffey Jr. runs full speed toward the center field wall, leaps with outstretched glove, and catches the ball while diving to the ground. The home team crowd, just robbed of a game winning double, shakes their respective heads in admiration of Griffey's 11 spectacular catch. Case 5. Griffey
say that S's action is a result of her character is to suppose that S's fictional character is an important part, perhaps the about important part, of 10 the story. take this way, (c') is not excessively strong at all, but quite reflects our common common sense attitudes about the sources of human action. The fact is, we cite character in explanations of human behavior all the clock time, as when we say that he made the remark because he is insensitive (as opposed to receive a bad day), or that she failed to spend the money because she is brassy (as opposed to hard up for cash at the moment).xviii Feinberg's analysis reveals that such explanations are implied in attribution of blame, or at least in attributions of a certain sort of blame. And this implies that attributions of blame (of that special sort) will inherit the pragmatics of causal explanations. Clearly, any action will be the result of a number of factors, include a person's character. But sometimes we want to suppose that quality is particularly salient - that it is an important function, possibly the most important part, of the fib behind why the person acted as he did. b. A general theory of citation attribution. Feinberg's account of moral blaming can easily be broadened in two ways. foremost, I have already noted that the counterpart of incrimination for an action is credit for an action. In fact, we can use credit as the general condition, and talk about positive credit (i.e. praise) and damaging credit (i.e. blame) for an action. Second, there are kind of credit other than moral.xix For example, we credit athletes for acrobatic feats and thinkers for intellectual ones. consequently, I propose the following as a cosmopolitan theory of credit. A person S deserves credit of kind K for action A entirely if a. A has value of kind K, b. A can be ascribed to S, and c. A reveals S's K - relevant character. Alternatively: S's K - relevant character is an important necessary part of the entire set of causal factors that yield rise to S's doing A. Two examples will illustrate this account. Case 4. Ken Griffey Jr. prevail full speed toward the center field wall, leaps with outstretched baseball glove, and catch the musket ball while diving to the ground. The home team crowd, just robbed of a game win double, shakes their respective heads in wonder of Griffey's 11 spectacular apprehension. Case 5. Griffey
 saj that S's action is a rerult of her chataxter iv to szy that R's character is an important pqrt, ptghaps the most importxnt part, lf 10 the wtorb. Taken this way, (c') is nob too dtroug at all, but rajher reflectv our common sanre attitudes about the sources of humwn actipn. The fact is, wg citt craradnev in explanations of human behavjor all the time, as ehen we say that he made tje rfmark because he id insensitice (af opposed to faving a bad day), or thzt she failed to spend the moneh beccuse she is cyeao (as opposed to hwrd up for cash at tve momemt).xviii Feinbevg's aialywis reveals that such explanations are ymplied it cttributions of blame, oe at neasd in qttfibhtmona of a cectain sort kf blame. Ane this implies that aentibutions of blame (os that special sort) will inherit the prdgmztics of causal explanarions. Clearly, any actlon will fe the result of a number of factors, including a [ersoi's chcvwzreg. But sometimes we want to say that character js psrticularly sajient-that iy ls wn important kart, pexgals the most importwnt parj, of tye story fehimd why the person acted as ye did. b. A gvnerql theory of credic attributiou. Feinnerg's account of moral blamiug can easily be hroadened kn two ways. Firsg, I hdve already noted that the counterpert oy blame wor sn actyon is crefit for an action. In fach, we ean uve credit ws the general term, and talk about positive ctedht (p.e. praise) and kegative credit (i.e. blame) for cn actiou. Secovd, there age kinds mf credit oeher than mordp.xix For exakple, we sredut arhletes wor athletic frats and nhnnkers foe intellectual onex. Azdordingly, I pro'uwe the followinb ar a gvnecal traory of credht. A pefxon S deservtf greait pf kind K for action A ohly if a. A has valie of kind K, b. A cwn be ascribec to S, and c. A revtals S'v K-celevamt sharacter. Alternatively: S's K-remevant chwragter is an im[ortqnt necessarv part of the total set of causal factorw that give rise jo S's doing A. Two exakkles will illnstratq this acwount. Case 4. Ken Grifdey Jr. runs full xpeed toward the centsr fiend wapl, leaps with outstretched glove, and catches the ball while diving to the grounv. Ehe home tezm ctowd, bufc robbeq of e game winning dolble, shakes their respective heavs in admisacion of Griffey's 11 spectacular cxtch. Case 5. Grkffey
say that S's action is a result character to say S's character is most part, of 10 story. Taken this (c') is not too strong at but rather reflects our common sense attitudes about the sources of human action. fact is, we cite character in explanations of human behavior all the time, when say he the remark because he is insensitive (as opposed to having a bad day), or that she to spend the money because she is cheap opposed to hard up cash at the moment).xviii Feinberg's reveals such explanations implied attributions blame, or at in attributions of a certain sort of blame. And this implies that attributions of blame (of that sort) will pragmatics of explanations. any will be the a number of factors, including a sometimes we want to say that character is salient-that it an important part, perhaps the most part, of the story behind why the person as he did. b. A general theory of credit attribution. Feinberg's account of moral blaming be broadened in two First, I have noted the of for an is credit for an action. In fact, we can use credit the general term, and talk about positive credit (i.e. praise) credit blame) for an Second, there are kinds credit than moral.xix For example, athletes athletic for ones. I propose the following a general theory of credit. person S deserves credit A only if a. A has value of K, b. A can be ascribed to and c. A reveals S's K-relevant character. Alternatively: S's K-relevant character is important necessary the total set of causal factors that give to S's doing A. examples will illustrate this account. Case 4. Ken Griffey runs speed toward center field wall, with outstretched glove, catches the ball to the The team of a game winning double, shakes respective in admiration of Griffey's 11 catch. Griffey
 say that S's action is a result oF her characTer is To sAy tHaT S's cHaraCter is an importANt paRt, perhaps the most importAnt paRt, OF 10 the SToRy. TakEn this wAY, (c') IS Not ToO sTroNg AT aLl, but RatHer reflEcts our comMon SeNse attitudes ABoUt the sourcEs oF human action. the Fact is, We CitE CharaCteR in exPlanatIOns of hUman behavIoR All the TIme, as whEN We Say tHat he made the remarK BeCAuse he is insensItive (aS oPPoSED to HavIng a bad day), Or That sHE failed TO sPEND thE Money because sHe is cheap (as OPpoSed to hArD up FOr cash At the MoMEnt).Xviii FeinbeRg's aNalysis reVeals tHAt such eXPlanatiOns are ImpLieD in aTTrIbUtiOnS Of bLAmE, or AT leAst in attRiBuTions Of a cERTAIn soRt oF blaMe. And This implies thAt aTtriBUtiOns of Blame (Of thAt SpeciAl sort) Will iNhErit the pragmatiCs of Causal expLanAtIonS. CLearlY, Any actIon WilL be the rEsult of A NumBeR OF FaCtors, including a perSoN'S ChAracter. BUt someTImEs WE want to sAy ThaT chaRACter iS parTIcUlarly saLient-tHAt It Is an impOrTant paRt, PerHapS the mOSt imPortanT part, of tHe stoRY behind why the pERson acted as he DId. B. a GeNEral TheOry of credit AttrIButiOn. FeINbErg'S AccouNt of mOrAL bLAming can easily be broAdEned in Two waYs. First, I have aLready noteD THAt the couNterPArT Of blame for an acTion iS credit for AN action. IN fact, We can use Credit as tHE General tErm, And TalK abOUT pOsitive credit (I.E. PraiSe) And negaTivE credit (I.e. bLamE) foR an AcTion. SeconD, there arE kInDs Of CreDit otHEr than moRaL.xiX FOr eXamplE, We credIt athLeteS fOr AThlEtic feaTS aND ThinKeRs For iNteLlEctuaL oneS. accOrdinglY, I propose The FOlloWiNg As a geneRal theory of crEdIt. A person S DeSerVes creDIT of kind K For action A only if a. A has vaLUe of kinD K, b. a can bE ascRibed to S, aNd c. a reveaLs S'S k-relevAnt chaRacteR. ALteRNAtiveLY: s's k-reLeVant characTER is An impOrTant NecessaRy part of the total seT Of cAusal factors tHat Give RISe To S'S DoINg A. twO ExaMPLes will illustraTe this accoUnT. caSe 4. Ken GriffEY Jr. RuNs full sPeed towArd thE Center fIeld wall, lEaps with oUtStreTCHed Glove, and caTches the Ball while DIving TO tHe groUnd. the homE tEam Crowd, Just roBBed Of a gaMe winnInG doublE, shakEs Their resPective heads in admiratioN of GriFfey's 11 SpeCtacular cAtcH. casE 5. Griffey
 say that S's action is aresult ofher c har act er  isto s ay that S's ch a ract er is an important par t, pe rh a ps t h emostimporta n tp a rt,  o f10th e  s tory.  Ta ken thi s way, (c' ) i snot too stro n gat all, bu t r ather reflec tsour co mm ons enseatt itude s abou t  the s ources of  h u man ac t ion. Th e fa ct i s, we cite charac t er in explanation s of h um a nb e hav ior  all the t im e, as when we sa y t hat he made the r emark becau s e h e is i ns ens i tive ( as op po s edto having a  bad  day), or  thats he fail e d to sp end th e m one y be c au se  sh ei s c h ea p ( a s o pposed t oha rd up  for c a s h at  th e mo ment) .xviii Feinbe rg' s an a lys is re veals  tha tsuchexplan ation sare implied inattr ibutionsofbl ame ,or at leastinatt ributio ns of a cer ta i n so rt of blame. And t hi s im plies th at att r ib ut i ons of b la me(oft h at sp ecia l  s ort) wil l inhe r it  t he prag ma tics o fcau sal  expl a nati ons. C learly,any a c tion will be t h e result of a nu m b er of f act ors, includ inga  per son' s  c har a cter.  Butso m et i mes we want to sayth at cha racte r is particul arly salie n t - that itis a n  i m portant part,perha ps the mos t  importa nt pa rt, of t he storyb e hind why  th e p ers ona c te d as he did.b .  A g en eral th eor y of cr edi t a ttr ibu ti on. Feinb erg's ac co un tof  mo ral b l aming ca neas il y b e bro a denedin tw o wa ys .F irs t, I ha v ea l read yno tedtha tthe c ount e rpa rt of b lame forana ctio nis  credit  for an actio n.  In fact,we  ca n usec r edit asthe general term, and t a lk abou t p ositi ve c redit (i. e.praise ) a n d nega tive c redit  ( i.e . blame ) fo r a naction. Se c o nd,  ther earekinds o f credit other tha n  mo ral.xix For e xam ple, w ecre d it ath le t esf o r athletic feat s and thin ke r sfor intell e ctu al  ones.Accordi ngly, I propo se the fo llowing a sa ge n e ral  theory of  credit.  A person S des e rv es cr edi t of k in d K  foraction A o nly i f a. A  h as val ue of  k ind K, b . A can be ascribed toS, and  c. A  re veals S's  K- r ele vant char acte r. Alterna tiv ely : S's  K- r eleva nt c h ar act e r isan i m portant n e ce ssa r y  p art of thet o t alset o f c a usal f acto rs that give rise to S's doing A . Tw o exa mpl e s wi ll  illustrate th isac c o unt. Cas e4. Ken Grif fey Jr.ru n s ful l spee d towa rd thec e nt e r fiel d wa ll,  leaps wi thou t stretch ed  g l ove, a nd c at ches t he bal l  whi l e  diving to the g round . The h o meteamcr owd, ju s t ro bbed of agame winnin g doub le,shake s their  r espect ive  h eads in ad m iration o f Gri ffey's11  spe cta cularcatc h .  Case  5.Gr iff ey
 say_that S's_action is a result_of her_character_is to_say_that S's character_is an important_part, perhaps the most_important part, of_10_the story. Taken this way, (c') is not too strong at all, but rather_reflects_our common_sense_attitudes_about the sources of human_action. The fact is, we_cite character_in explanations of human behavior all the time,_as_when we say_that he made the remark because he is insensitive_(as opposed to having a bad_day), or that_she_failed_to spend the money_because she is cheap (as opposed_to hard up for cash at_the moment).xviii Feinberg's analysis reveals that such_explanations are implied in attributions of_blame, or at least in_attributions of_a certain sort of blame._And this implies_that attributions_of blame (of_that special sort) will inherit the_pragmatics of causal_explanations. Clearly, any action will be_the_result of a_number_of_factors, including_a person's character._But_sometimes we_want_to say that character is particularly_salient-that_it is an important part, perhaps the_most important part, of_the_story behind why the_person acted as he did._b. A general theory of credit_attribution. Feinberg's_account of_moral blaming can easily be broadened in two ways. First, I_have already noted that the counterpart_of blame for an_action is_credit_for an action._In_fact, we_can use credit as the general term,_and talk_about positive credit (i.e. praise) and_negative credit (i.e. blame)_for_an action. Second, there are kinds_of credit other than moral.xix For_example, we credit athletes for_athletic_feats_and thinkers for intellectual ones._Accordingly, I propose the following as_a general theory_of credit. A person S deserves credit_of_kind K for action A only_if_a. A has value of kind_K,_b._A can be ascribed to_S, and c. A reveals S's_K-relevant character. Alternatively: S's K-relevant character is an important_necessary part of_the total set of causal_factors_that_give rise to S's doing A. Two examples will illustrate_this account._Case 4. Ken_Griffey Jr. runs full speed toward the center field wall,_leaps with outstretched glove, and catches the_ball while diving to the ground. The home team crowd, just_robbed of a game winning double, shakes their_respective heads in admiration of Griffey's 11_spectacular catch. Case 5._Griffey