Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    It is unclear whether the moral relationship is sufficien... — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    It is unclear whether the moral relationship is sufficient to explain the blame of strangers.

    Moral Responsibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.P.F. Strawson's reactive attitudes require a relationship of mutual accountability, but strangers lack the standing that makes such accountability robustly binding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Blame of strangers relies on impersonal moral norms rather than relational expectations, suggesting a categorically different grounding than relationship-based blame.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If relational ties were sufficient for stranger-blame, the intensity and appropriateness of blame should scale with relational closeness, yet our practices do not consistently reflect this.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Angela Smith's recognition model grounds blame in the quality of an agent's regard for others, which presupposes an evaluative relationship, but strangers share no prior evaluative history.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without a shared history of interaction, the moral relationship between strangers is too thin to generate the normative expectations whose violation constitutes the core of blameworthy conduct.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • Even if there is some relationship between a victim and the stranger who victimizes them, it is not clear that this relationship plays any role in grounding the blame.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Moral Responsibility

    Related

    Angela Smith's recognition model grounds blame in the quality of an agent's rega...Blame of strangers relies on impersonal moral norms rather than relational expec...Even if there is some relationship between a victim and the stranger who victimi...If relational ties were sufficient for stranger-blame, the intensity and appropr...
    +2 moreShow less
    P.F. Strawson's reactive attitudes require a relationship of mutual accountabili...Without a shared history of interaction, the moral relationship between stranger...

    Similar

    Even if there is some relationship between a victim and the stranger w...84%Therefore, moral wrongdoing being sufficient to warrant blame means mo...80%Contractualist blame can apply to total strangers, not only those with...79%Moral judgments of blame cannot be made about persons who are legitima...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: blame
    View source passageHide passage
    Susan Wolf (2011) has also argued that in some cases, such as the case of a hot-headed but ultimately loving family, it seems that you can blame another without taking yourself to have impairments in your relationship or attendant reasons to revise your intentions or attitudes towards that person. The characteristic features of Scanlon’s interpretation of blame, then, seem to be unnecessary. More recently, Sher (2013) has argued that Scanlon’s emphasis on relationships is problematic. After all,
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit