The self-effacing functionality of blame

Author:

Queloz MatthieuORCID

Abstract

AbstractThis paper puts forward an account of blame combining two ideas that are usually set up against each other: that blame performs an important function, and that blame is justified by the moral reasons making people blameworthy rather than by its functionality. The paper argues that blame could not have developed in a purely instrumental form, and that its functionality itself demands that its functionality be effaced in favour of non-instrumental reasons for blame—its functionality is self-effacing. This notion is sharpened and it is shown how it offers an alternative to instrumentalist or consequentialist accounts of blame which preserves their animating insight while avoiding their weaknesses by recasting that insight in an explanatory role. This not only allows one to do better justice to the authority and autonomy of non-instrumental reasons for blame, but also reveals that autonomy to be a precondition of blame’s functionality. Unlike rival accounts, it also avoids the “alienation effect” that renders blame unstable under reflection by undercutting the authority of the moral reasons which enable it to perform its function in the first place. It instead yields a vindicatory explanation that strengthens our confidence in those moral reasons.

Funder

Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Philosophy

Reference47 articles.

1. Arneson, R. J. (2003). The smart theory of moral responsibility and desert. In S. Olsaretti (Ed.), Desert and justice (pp. 233–258). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

2. Bennett, C. (2002). The varieties of retributive experience. The Philosophical Quarterly, 52(207), 145–163.

3. Blackburn, S. (2015). Williams, Smith, and the peculiarity of piacularity. Journal of the American Philosophical Association, 1(2), 217–232.

4. Brandom, R. (2019). A spirit of trust: A reading of hegel’s phenomenology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

5. Dennett, D. C. (1984). Elbow room: The varieties of free will worth wanting. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Cited by 21 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. A Theory of Moral Fictionalism;Morality: From Error to Fiction;2024-08-29

2. After Error Theory: The “What Next?” Question;Morality: From Error to Fiction;2024-08-29

3. Defenses of Moral Error Theory;Morality: From Error to Fiction;2024-08-29

4. The Argument from Moral Responsibility;Morality: From Error to Fiction;2024-08-29

5. The Naturalist’s Case for Error Theory;Morality: From Error to Fiction;2024-08-29

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3