P.F. Strawson's reactive attitudes account grounds moral responsibility in interpersonal relationships of holding and being held to account, not in agent-internal rational capacities.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

Agent-internal rational capacities(what Strawson's account does NOT rely on): Mental abilities that exist inside a person's own mind, like the ability to reason, think logically, or understand right from wrong.
Holding to account(how interpersonal relationships ground responsibility): Treating someone as responsible for their actions by responding to them emotionally or socially—like blaming them when they hurt you or praising them when they help.
Interpersonal relationships(where Strawson locates the source of moral responsibility): The connections and interactions between people—how people relate to and treat each other.
P.F. Strawson(as the author of 'Freedom and Resentment'): A 20th-century British philosopher famous for analyzing how we actually think and talk about everyday things like freedom and blame, rather than abstract theories.
moral responsibility(The author argues for a pluralistic understanding rather than a Kantian-exclusive one): A normative concept whose scope is contested; the passage implies it encompasses at least Kantian notions (centered on individual rational agency) and other notions (potentially sociological, collective, or non-individualist in character)
reactive attitudes(Blame is given as the paradigm case of a reactive attitude): Attitudes that agents have towards other agents in response to those agents' behavior

2 topics