Praise and Blame Flashcards
Merit-based view of praise and blame
Praise and blame are appropriate reactions towards a given individual if and only if she merits (deserves) such a reaction
Consequence-based view of praise and blame
Praise and blame are appropriate reactions towards a given individual if and only if a reaction of this sort would likely lead to a desired change in the agent and their behaviour
By who are merit-based views often adopted by?
Incompatibilists
The hard-determinist/merit-based argument against praise and blame
- Praise and blame are appropriate reactions towards an individual if and only if they merit such a reaction
- Individuals merit such reactions if and only if they act of their own free will
- Given determinism, no one acts of their own free will
Therefore 4. Individuals should not be praised/blamed
Who adopts a consequence-based view?
Compatibilists and incompatibilists
Why do both compatibilists and incompatibilists adopt a consequence-based view?
Because it is not a necessary condition of generating a desired change in an agent/their behaviour that they possess free will
Conclusion of consequence-based argument for praise and blame
Whether determinism is true and no one is able to act of their own free will (incompatibilism), or whether determinism is true and some people are able to act of their own free will (compatibilism), praise and blame are still an appropriate reaction towards and individual
Pessimists
Merit-based incompatibilists
What do pessimists believe?
Praise and blame are appropriate reactions towards a given individual if and only if she merits such a reaction and if determinism is true, no one acts of their own free will
Optimists
Consequence-based theorists
What do optimists believe?
Praise and blame are appropriate reactions towards a given individual if and only if a reaction of this sort would likely lead to a desired change in the agent and/or her behaviour
What does Strawson want the optimist and pessimist to do?
The pessimist to make a formal withdrawal and the optimist to make a vital concession
What does Strawson think about the optimists argument?
It is an inadequate account and leaves out something vital
What does Strawson think about the pessimists argument?
The pessimist overreaches
Reactive attitudes
Attitudes to which we are prone, by virtue of our relationships with others, and their actions/intentions towards us
What could you understand the disagreement between optimists and pessimists as?
A disagreement about what sort of things could justify our reactive attitudes
What are the two types of reactive attitudes?
Impersonal and personal reactive attitudes
Impersonal reactive attitudes
Attitudes we may hold despite having a certain detachment from the action/agents, such attitudes may be belief someone ought to be punished/praised/blamed etc
Personal reactive attitudes
Non-detached attitudes we have when we are directly involved with the action of an agent, such attitudes may be gratitude, resentment, forgiveness, love, hurt feelings etc.
Why does Strawson argue for focusing on ‘personal’ reactive attitudes
Because there are less disputants that the issue of impersonal reactive attitudes and the issue may be easier to settle and help settle the one of impersonal reactive attitudes
What are the two attitudes Strawson distinguishes between?
Participatory and objective attitude
Participatory attitude
Attitude to another human that Strawson describes as an attitude of involvement or participation in a human relationship
Objective attitude
Attitude to another human that Strawson describes as an attitude that sees them as an object of social policy
What does the objective attitude exclude?
Personal reactive attitudes
Strawson’s argument against optimism
- For the pessimist to secure the practice of praise and blame, it needs to maintain the view of people as participants within a moral community.
- If our view of people as participants within a moral community is to hold, it needs to include
personal reactive attitudes. - In adopting an objective attitude toward others, optimism excludes the possibility of
personal reactive attitudes.
Therefore - Optimism renders an adequate defence of the kinds of concepts and practices the pessimist wants to secure
impossible.
What is the concession Strawson wants the optimist to make?
To make personal reactive attitudes a part of their picture
What does Strawson argue reactive attitudes are?
Natural and irrevocable, a central part of being human
Attitudes we express when holding someone responsible derive from?
Our personal relationships
When can reactive attitudes be suspended/modified?
If it was an accident or the behaviour was justified
If the individual is considered as psychologically/morally abnormal (e.g. mentally ill/young child) what position do we adopt?
An objective standpoint
What does strawson argue about consequentialist and merit-based views on morality?
They are over- intellectualised, reactive attitudes are natural and do not call for external/rational justification
Justification should refer to an account of reactive attitudes in personal relationships not..
An independent theory of the conditions of responsibility
What does Strawson argue about the debate on responsibility and determinism?
It is pointless, reactive attitudes and the participant standpoint possess no truth value and need no external justification
What is Strawson’s main contribution to moral responsibility?
The addition of reactive attitudes
What is Strawson’s advance on moral responsibility?
Determinism doesn’t pose a threat to moral responsibility
Why is it natural for humans to assign blame?
Humans are inseparable from emotions
