Other Ways of Not Having a Standing to Blame

Abstract

AbstractFactors other than hypocrisy can undermine standing to blame. This chapter examines five additional sources of lack of standing: (1) that the blamer has the same fault as the blamee (tu quoque; (2) that the blamer is complicit in that for which the blamer blames the blamee; (3) that which the blamee is blamed for is none of the blamer’s business; (4) the blamer lacks understanding of the action for which they blame the blamee; (5) and, finally, the blamer does not accept the principle to which they appeal. The chapter argues that hypocrisy and these five ways of lacking standing to blame are distinct. Moreover, the commitment account of why the hypocritical blamer lacks standing to blame cannot be extended to cover all five forms of standingless blame discussed in this chapter; e.g., it cannot be extended to cover dismissal of meddlesome blame. Another, and related, claim is that the different kinds of standingless blame are wrong for different reasons. Specifically, the moral equality account of the wrongfulness of hypocritical blame cannot explain the wrongness of all the forms of standingless blame discussed in this chapter.