Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Strawson's reactive attitudes framework shows blame is constituted by feelings like resentment and indignation, not relational revision intentions.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Blame judgments can be made while explicitly suppressing resentment, suggesting feelings are not constitutive but merely typical accompaniments.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Blame requires accountability standards independent of any individual's emotional states; resentment varies by temperament, not blameworthiness.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Parents blame children while also intending relational revision; Strawson conflates the feeling with distinct communicative and corrective aims.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Blame persists even when we abandon relational intentions, as when we resent historical figures we'll never interact with again.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Reactive attitudes like resentment have phenomenological priority—they arise spontaneously before deliberate relational choices.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
People with psychopathy can form relational intentions to modify behavior without experiencing the resentment constitutive of blame.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.