Definition of 'introduce'

When introducing a person to another person or introducing two people, tell each other their names so that they can understand each other. If you introduce yourself to others, you will tell them your name.

Both philosophers and scientists like the definition of freedom, in short, the ability to do other things. In the 1969 paper, philosopher Harry Frankfurt introduced "Principles of alternative possibility" based on this definition, "People can do it only when they can do it" I explained. The problem is morally responsible. Even though there is a tendency to doubt the validity of this principle - and Frankfurt - its direct intuitive appeal can not be denied. Talking about moral responsibility is meaningful if you can not take other forms of past actions.

Based on the definition of causality by Halpern and Pearl, I will introduce the definition of responsibility and responsibility. You can not say that the definition is "correct" or "wrong", but you can check and verify the usefulness of the definition, in particular how much it perceives our intuition. Causal relationships have been widely discussed in philosophical literature, and many examples show the subtleness of this concept. Therefore, a useful strategy to demonstrate the definition of causality is useful and suggests that these examples can be handled well. This is actually done for the definition of causality in Halpern and Pearl (see (Halpern & Pearl, 2004a)).

In this paper, we propose the definition of responsibility taking this distinction into account. This definition is an extension of the definition of causality introduced by Halpern and Pearl (2004a). Just like many other definitions of causality, you can go back to Hume (1739). This is based on counterfactual dependence. Roughly speaking, A is the reason of B. If A does not occur (A occurs, this is a condition contrary to the fact), B will not occur. As we all know, this simple definition does not capture all the nuances related to causality. In the case of 6 votes and 5 votes, according to this definition, it is clear that all Mr. B's votes are because he won. To Mr. B, he lost. On the other hand, in the case of 11-0 votes, there is no reason based on a simple anti-factual definition.