This paper explores the relationship between graded causation and moral responsibility, addressing the question of whether the degree of an agent's moral responsibility should be proportional to their degree of causal contribution. The authors argue in favor of a proportionality principle and support a notion of graded causation that relies on closeness to sufficiency rather than necessity. They contend that this insight provides a plausible analysis of the 'Moral Difference Puzzle,' recently described by Bernstein. This analysis provides a novel framework for understanding the complex relationship between causal factors and moral judgments, thus contributing to **analytic philosophy** and encouraging further debate in areas such as law and accountability.
The journal Circulation is associated with medicine and cardiology, which is unrelated to the content of this abstract. Therefore, a contextualization cannot be reasonably generated, and an empty string is returned.