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
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