Blame

If an agent’s moral blameworthiness is mitigated by her addiction, fitting blaming responses by affected parties should register this. What might be the proper way of doing so? I refer to this as the problem of fitting blame in addiction. The view I put forward rests on a distinction between desert-presupposing and non-desert-presupposing forms of blame. Retributive blame is the paradigm of the former, presupposing that target agents deserve to suffer harm on account of their behavior. This presupposition, I argue, (...) is typically incorrect when an agent's actions result from a significant impairment of behavioral control, as is often the case in severe addiction. In contrast, non-desert-presupposing forms of blame toward people with addiction can be fitting, regardless of considerations about their instrumental value. The argument for this claim is based on the notion of scaffolding blame (McGeer, 2013, 2019). Scaffolding forms of blame presuppose that target agents have the capacity to recognize their wrongdoing, care about harm done, engage in a productive moral conversation, and have some potential to act differently in the future. These presuppositions, I argue, are typically correct in cases of severe addiction. (shrink)

Many philosophers who deny moral luck in consequences also affirm that people can be morally responsible for consequences. But this conjunction of views faces a puzzle: because consequences are almost always shaped by luck, how can people be morally responsible for lucky consequences? The solution to which these philosophers appeal is to distinguish between degree and scope of moral responsibility. Although lucky consequences cannot affect how much praise or blame people deserve, people can nevertheless be morally responsible for the consequences. (...) We raise a new problem for this solution. We argue that if a person blames the wrongdoer to the full extent deserved for their action, they cannot justly blame the wrongdoer for the consequence. But that result is functionally equivalent to the view that people are not morally responsible for consequences. In both cases, blame for consequences is inapt. But this counterintuitive result is not implied by the position that resultant moral luck exists, which is a comparative point in the latter view’s favor. (shrink)

Moral collectivists argue that certain groups can bear moral responsibility and moral duties. Moral individualists reject this. In this debate, individualists and collectivists both make a common methodological mistake when theorizing about moral agency, responsibility, and blame. Their arguments implicitly assume an all-out primacy of the individual domain. Unless groups can satisfy the exact conditions of our best theory of individual moral responsibility, they are not morally responsible entities. I argue that none of the plausible arguments justify this all-out primacy. (...) Instead, I defend moderate primacy: (1) We should start our theorizing based on individual cases; and (2) extensional inadequacy for the individual domain is worse than for the group domain. This moderate primacy opens the door for the group domain to play an important role in developing a comprehensive ethical theory. I sketch a directed reflective equilibrium method for systematically including the group domain in our theorizing about moral agency, responsibility, and blame. I further develop the Core Features Argument that shows why the collectivist is justified in developing agent-neutral principles and moral concepts that apply to individual and group agents alike. Finally, I suggest that the group domain offers the potential for adjudicating debates in ethical theory and exciting new lines of inquiry that could help us better understand the moral phenomena that ethical theory seeks to explain. (shrink)

Resultant moral luck is typically considered to be the most problematic type of moral luck. Arguably the most popular response to the problem of resultant moral luck is the idea that resultant luck affects the scope but not the degree of responsibility. Call this the ‘Degree Scope Response’ (DSR). Philosophers also use DSR in responding to other types of moral luck and in contexts outside moral luck. In this paper, I argue that DSR fails. Then I suggest that we should (...) hold that resultant luck affects neither the degree nor the scope of responsibility. Put differently, consequences are metaphysically irrelevant to responsibility. Further, I discuss various advantages of this view and show its various implications on questions about free will, theories of causation, and responsibility in contexts outside moral luck. I also defend this view against the worry that it is too revisionary. (NOTE: Email me for a copy.). (shrink)

This paper examines the wave of anti-transgender legislation in Western countries as a contemporary form of scapegoating. Drawing on René Girard’s theory of mimetic violence and Talia Mae Bettcher’s analysis of transphobic violence and essentialization, it argues that trans people are culturally constructed as deceptive or dangerous, and that such narratives become institutionalized through law. By examining legislation concerning education, sports, identification, and healthcare, the paper shows how moral panic and political rhetoric redirect social anxieties onto a vulnerable group, fostering (...) unity among those who view themselves as “protected.” A feminist extension of Girard’s model reveals scapegoating as both gendered and structural: it reinforces patriarchal and cisnormative norms while obscuring the deeper social and political causes of instability. (shrink)

Traditionally, those writing on blame have been concerned with blaming others, including when one has the standing to blame others. Yet some alleged problems for such accounts of standing arise when we focus on self-blame. First, if hypocrites lack the standing to blame others, it might seem that they also lack the standing to blame themselves. But this would lead to a bootstrapping problem, wherein hypocrites can only regain standing by doing that which they lack the standing to do. Second, (...) in addition to hypocrites, there may be hypercrites, who blame themselves more severely than others. Leading accounts for why hypocrites lack standing to blame others would also seem to imply that hypercrites lack the standing to blame others, but some may find this counterintuitive. We argue that neither of these problems from self-blame poses a unique threat to leading accounts of standing. (shrink)

Hypocrites, we are told, lack the moral standing to blame. But what is this standing to blame? Why would hypocrisy undermine it? Do any other conditions compromise standing to blame? Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen’s The Beam and the Mote offers the first book-length treatment on such complex questions. Yet the book admirably pushes even further, extending the scope of standing into other normative domains, such as praise, forgiveness, and encouragement. In our review, we critically engage with four of the book’s central topics: (...) (1) the nature and scope of the moral standing to blame, (2) why hypocrisy undermines standing to blame, (3) what other conditions undermine standing to blame, and (4) standing in other normative domains. Although we argue that Lippert-Rasmussen’s views on (2) and (4) require further development, his expansion of standing into underexplored domains is praiseworthy. (shrink)

Supervisors and managers plausibly have the moral standing, or right, to blame their employees for violations of company policies. Yet hypocrites plausibly lack the standing to hold others accountable for wrongs they are guilty of themselves. These two observations raise a concern: does a supervisor have the standing to blame their employees for violations of some company policy if the supervisor hypocritically also violates that policy? On one hand, it seems clear that they must, given their position in the company. (...) On the other hand, it seems clear that they cannot, given their hypocrisy. We argue for a disjunctive explanation for this apparent inconsistency according to which hypocritical supervisors may lack standing qua individual persons, yet nevertheless have standing either in virtue of their role or in virtue of inheriting the standing of their organization as a proxy for that organization. While the role solution is attractive in its simplicity, it is unclear that it can adequately explain all cases of hypocritical supervisors. Yet while the proxy solution is more complete, it relies on contentious claims about corporate moral responsibility. We develop both explanations, remaining neutral on whether the comprehensiveness of the proxy solution is worth its metaphysical commitments. (shrink)

It is conventional wisdom that appreciating the role of luck in our moral lives should make us more sparing with blame. But views of moral responsibility that allow luck to augment a person’s blameworthiness are in tension with this wisdom. I resolve this tension: our common moral luck partially generates a duty to forgo retributively blaming the blameworthy person at least sometimes. So, although luck can amplify the blame that a person deserves, luck also partially generates a duty not to (...) give the blameworthy person the retributive blame that he deserves at least sometimes. (shrink)

The book develops and defends a general normative framework called feasibilism. Feasibilist norms urge manifesting the best feasible dispositions—ways of forming and retaining doxastic states, as well as choosing and acting, that are available to beings like us. The first half of the book presents case studies showing how epistemological implementations of feasibilism can advance long-standing debates in epistemology, including the New Evil Demon Problem, puzzles involving higher-order evidence and defeat, and challenges facing broadly consequentialist approaches. The feasibilist norm defended (...) urges manifesting the most knowledge-conducive feasible dispositions. This knowledge-centric implementation, I argue, provides the most promising normative theory in epistemology: simple, elegant, metaphysically respectable, and explanatorily powerful. The second half of the book moves from epistemology to a more systematic defence of the feasibilist normative framework. In the moral domain, too, we are confronted with problems of luck and limitation. Given any plausible standard of moral rightness, in some situations it is only possible to do the right thing by luck. Again, we need a normative standards more attuned to our limitations. Applying the feasibilist framework to the moral domain yields interesting and surprising results—for instance, that one can sometimes be blameworthy for morally right action. Feasibilism thus unifies different normative domains within a single, non-ideal framework, offering standards attuned to human limitations but tied to valuable normative successes. (shrink)

How does character information inform judgments of blame? Some argue that character information is indirectly relevant to blame because it enriches judgments about the mental states of a wrongdoer. Others argue that character information is directly relevant to blame, even when character traits are causally irrelevant to the wrongdoing. We propose an empirical synthesis of these views: a Two Channel Model of blame. The model predicts that character information directly affects blame when this information is relevant to the wrongdoing that (...) elicits blame. Further, the effect of character information on blame depends on judgments about the true self that are independent of judgments of intentionality. Across three pre-registered studies (N = 662), we found support for all three predictions of the Two Channel Model. We propose that this reflects two distinct functions of blame: a social regulatory function that encourages norm compliance and a pedagogical function that encourages personal improvement. (shrink)

Epistemologists have recently argued that there is such a thing as ‘epistemic blame’: blame targeted at purely epistemic norm violations. Leading the charge has been Cameron Boult, who has argued across a series of papers that we can make sense of this phenomenon by building an account of epistemic blame off of Scanlon’s account of moral blame. This paper argues a relationship-based account of epistemic blame is untenable, because it eliminates any distinction between blameworthy and excused agents. Attempts to overcome (...) this problem cannot succeed because of the important but unrecognised ways his account deviates from Scanlon’s, and because of differences in how our moral and epistemic conduct are affected by our attitudes and expectations. (shrink)

This paper proposes a new theory of the nature of hypocritical blame and why it is objectionable, arguing that hypocritical blame is a form of dishonest signaling. Blaming provides very important benefits: through its ability to signal our commitments to norms and unwillingness to tolerate norm violations, it greatly contributes to valuable norm-following. Hypocritical blamers, however, are insufficiently committed to the norms or values they blame others for violating. As allowing their blame to pass unchecked threatens the signaling system, our (...) strong interest in maintaining valuable norm-following by tracking who has what commitments justifies objecting to hypocritical blame. This theory has a number of strengths over competing accounts: it delivers intuitive verdicts about when blame is objectionable across a range of cases, it is a naturalistic explanation, it is consistent with a leading theory of the nature of blame, it explains why hypocritical pronouncements that don’t feature blame are similiarly objectionable, it does not rely on contentious analyses of the nature of ‘standing’, and it preserves the common intuition that hypocrites are in some way dishonest. (shrink)

This paper provides a unified account of the nature of blame by taking a broader look at the connection between individual blaming reactions and the moral practices of communities. The methodological proposal is that to understand what blame is, we need to understand what it does, but to understand what it does, we need to understand what problems it helps solve. This, in turn, requires looking at the kinds of problems that communities have qua communities, namely, developing agents who are (...) competent norm-followers and who are motivated to exercise this competence. The reason blame seems so heterogeneous is that it has not one, but several, connected effects: it signals, sanctions and sensitises. Signalling provides assurance that norms will be upheld and enforced. Sanctioning deters norm violations. Sensitising produces agents who have internalised the norms and who are skilled at complying with them. These effects combine to produce agents who are robustly disposed to uphold norms, which is a very valuable thing to create. This account not only solves a number of puzzles about the nature of blame, it does so while providing a simple and principled story, one which emphasises our own nature as norm-sensitive beings. (shrink)

A number of philosophers have recently argued that there is such a thing as ‘epistemic blame’: blame targeted at epistemic norm violations qua epistemic norm violations. However, Smartt (2024) and Matheson and Milam (2022) have recently provided several arguments in favour of thinking epistemic blame either doesn’t exist, or is never justified. This paper argues these challenges are unsuccessful, and along the way evaluates the prospects for various accounts of epistemic blame. It also reflects on the dialectic between sceptics and (...) realists about epistemic blame, and what choice-points are available for moving the debate forward. (shrink)

Attempts to illuminate the nature of “blame” have shaped recent philosophical discussion of free will and moral responsibility. In this paper I show how, in at least one context, this search for a theory of blame has led us astray. Specifically, I focus on the contemporary debate about the “standing” to blame and argue, first, that theorizing about blame-in-general in this context has assumed an impoverished moral psychology that fails to reflect the range of blaming emotions and that conflates these (...) emotions’ distinctive logics; and, second, that such theorizing has encouraged the propagation of misleading theories of blame’s “norms.” Rather than searching for the nature of blame, I employ and defend an alternative methodological approach that focuses on the psychology and ethics of specific reactive emotions. I then show how an agent’s own bad behavior can alter the appropriateness of these various attitudes in distinctive ways. Marking these distinctions leads to some surprising conclusions. For example, it allows us to move beyond the assumption that the wrongness of standingless blame is fundamentally a matter of hypocrisy. (shrink)

Abstract: Contemporary analytic philosophers of the “reactive attitudes” tend to share a simple conception of guilt as “self-directed blame”—roughly, an “unpleasant affect” felt in combination with, or in response to, the thought that one has violated a moral requirement, evinced substandard “quality of will,” or is blameworthy. I believe that this simple conception is inadequate. As an alternative, I offer my own theory of guilt’s logic and its connection to morality. In doing so, I attempt to articulate guilt’s defining thought (...) or proposition through an extended investigation and analysis of guilt’s many competing metaphors, which I trace from the Hebrew Bible to the New Testament to Shakespeare to contemporary vernacular. My interpretation of this literary genealogy offers a way to understand guilt’s seemingly disparate metaphors in terms of a single master-image that illuminates our self-conceptions and our relationship to morality. I conclude by making a very brief start toward a moral vindication of guilt against the backdrop of Nietzschean and Freudian analyses that explicitly call guilt’s place in a healthy social and personal life into question. I suggest that once guilt’s logic is made explicit, we can see that it makes sense of, honors, and addresses some of our deepest aspirations and needs. (shrink)

[In Press - forthcoming 2026. ] The primary aim of this book is to provide the general reader with an overview of the main issues that arise relating to our understanding of matters of moral responsibility. Much of this study is constructed around a fundamental tension that we all must deal with in relation to this subject. From one point of view, moral responsibility permeates every aspect of human life - both in its public and its private dimensions. Beginning in (...) childhood, and continuing throughout our lives, we are immersed in a web of evaluations, attitudes, and practices that are evidence of our systematic and deep commitment to moral responsibility. From another point of view, when we critically reflect on our ordinary experience of moral responsibility, we encounter puzzles and perplexities concerning what moral responsibility actually involves, and what sort of justification it requires or that it can be provided with. This process is liable to push us into scepticism about its very possibility or intelligibility. We may be driven to worry about the death of moral responsibility as others have worried about the death of God. It is this philosophical dimension of moral responsibility that this study is especially concerned with. Although this slim volume cannot claim to offer any formulas or solutions for dealing with the various particular practical problems that readers may have, the discussion provided aims to discredit – or at least cast doubt on - some powerful illusions that continue to influence and distort much of our current thinking about this subject. This includes a misplaced scepticism about moral responsibility, which enjoys some currency in contemporary philosophy and some other related fields. When we discard these illusions, and remove the confusions that they generate, we will, hopefully, be better placed to deal with the practical problems and difficulties that we face in a more truthful, effective, and humane way. The picture of moral responsibility presented here is described as “responsibility realism”. It suggests that our human ethical predicament is one that falls in the territory that lies between a consoling optimism and a bleak pessimism. (shrink)

Denying blameworthiness after apologizing seems fishy. “Sorry, not sorry” is what this might sound like. Yet, this fact conflicts with another fact about apologies, namely, that we routinely apologize for blameless conduct. There is, thus, a puzzle regarding what it is that an apology must admit about one’s involvement in the apologized-for conduct for the apology to be fitting. This chapter solves this puzzle by arguing that in cases where our agency is blamelessly implicated in harmful conduct, apologies are fitting (...) only if they involve an admission of responsibility—where the responsibility in question does not entail blameworthiness. (shrink)

It has been argued that rationality consists in responding correctly to reasons. Recent defenses of the normativity of rationality assume that this implies that we always ought to be rational. However, this follows only if the reasons rationality requires us to correctly respond to are normative reasons. Recent meta-epistemological contributions have questioned whether epistemic reasons are normative. If they were right, then epistemic rationality wouldn’t provide us with normative reasons independently of wrong-kind reasons to be epistemically rational. This paper spells (...) out this neglected challenge for the normativity of epistemic rationality by connecting the two bodies of literature. Moreover, it generalizes this challenge to the rationality of desire, intention, and emotion. The upshot is that we can only answer the normative question about rationality if we debate about blame and accountability for holding different kinds of irrational attitudes, as well as about the sources of mental normativity. (shrink)

In certain cases – Alone/Together Dilemmas, Single-Agent Dilemmas, and Actualist “Professor Procrastinate” Cases – an agent is required to perform incompatible actions, such that performing some act required of her is a way of failing to perform another act which is also required of her. The act she performs is thereby wrong – even as it is required. According to my theory, Deontic Status Tracing, whether an agent is blameworthy for such an act depends on what explains its bizarre deontic (...) status – namely, whether it is her fault that this act is simultaneously required and wrong. (shrink)

Most business ethicists maintain that corporate actors are subject to a variety of moral obligations. However, there is a persistent and underappreciated concern that the competitive pressures of the market somehow provide corporate actors with a far-reaching excuse from meeting these obligations. Here, we assess this concern. Blending resources from the history of philosophy and strategic management, we demonstrate the assumptions required for and limits of this excuse. Applying the idea of ‘the state of nature’ from Thomas Hobbes, we suggest (...) that corporate actors would be excused from duties if complying with them threatened their vital interests. We show how this excuse is not available for most individuals within firms; instead, it is an excuse perhaps available to firms themselves, but only given substantive assumptions about corporate personhood. For those willing to make these assumptions, we apply the competitive advantage construct to delimit the scope of this excuse. We suggest that firms are excused from fulfilling an obligation when complying leads to a competitive disadvantage, as this imperils the firm’s vital interests. After revealing why this excuse does not generalize, we conclude by considering when we should reform the market to avoid the legitimacy of this excuse. (shrink)

Scepticism about epistemic blame maintains that there is no distinctly epistemic form of blame. Cameron Boult (2024a) challenges this view on the grounds that a particular theory of epistemic blame—the relationship modification account—can be defended against the sceptic. His defence includes two central claims. First, Boult proposes a pluralism in our repertoire of epistemic accountability practices that makes space for both epistemic blame and epistemic evaluation. Second, he develops a more ’sceptic-resistant’ way of articulating the phenomenon that proponents of epistemic (...) blame believe a theory of epistemic blame is needed to explain. In my view, neither of these arguments should convince us. I argue that the epistemic blame sceptic can meet both challenges. Although my arguments largely focus on Boult’s defence of his preferred account of epistemic blame, I also set out two general problems that faces any theory of epistemic blame. The upshot is that there remain strong grounds for scepticism about epistemic blame. (shrink)

Pragmatic vindicatory genealogies provide both a cause and a rationale and can thus affect the space of reasons. But how far is the space of reasons affected by this kind of genealogical argument? What normative and evaluative implications do these arguments have? In this paper, I unpack this issue into three different sub-questions and explain what kinds of reasons they provide, for whom are these reasons, and for what. In relation to this final sub-question I argue, most importantly, that these (...) arguments are ambiguous about what they give us reasons for, meaning that they can be interpreted both as justifications for recognizing the normative standing of certain norms, values, and practices - and thus for living by them - and as excuses for those that do so. I illustrate this point by reference to the genealogical vindication of honour cultures, showing how the vindicatory argument can illuminate such case as one of excusing moral ignorance. Drawing on legal theory and moral philosophy, I show that different evaluative and normative implications hang on the result of the interpretation as either justification or excuse, and show that this ambiguity is a virtue rather than a limitation. (shrink)

Theorists of moral responsibility have suggested that some of our responsibility-responses have a ‘point’, or a ‘function’, and that when, in general, blame with respect to a certain kind of person could not fulfill its function, that kind of person is not in fact blameworthy. Recently, however, some theorists (Beglin 2018, De Mesel 2025) seem to suggest a stronger thesis: if blame with respect to some kind of person can fulfill its function, then such persons are indeed blameworthy. Beglin and (...) De Mesel thus seek to put pressure on traditional incompatibilism, on grounds that blame has a function that can be fulfilled, even if no one ever has libertarian free will. In this paper, I argue that this style of argument cannot succeed: once we distinguish between ‘internal’ and ‘external’ function, we can see that the core argument faces a dilemma. If the proposal is one about ‘external’ function, we cannot move ‘from function to fittingness’; whereas if the proposal is about ‘internal’ function, the incompatibilist will reject that proposal on the usual grounds. (shrink)

I argue that tracing theorists of culpability for ignorant wrongdoing should reject the widely accepted principle that culpability for ignorant wrongdoing should always be traced through culpability for the ignorance itself. Two kinds of cases are considered in which culpability for ignorant wrongdoing ultimately traces back to culpability for a benighting act, but where it appears that culpable ignorance is not part of the explanation of the ignorant wrongdoing's culpability. These are (1) cases in which the ignorant wrongdoing is a (...) foreseeable consequence of a culpable benighting act and yet the ignorance is an unforeseeable consequence of that act (making the ignorance blameless), and (2) cases in which the ignorance is the foreseeable consequence of a culpable benighting act (making it culpable) but where the connection between the ignorance and the foreseeable wrongdoing from it is itself unforeseeable. I contend that culpability for the ignorant wrongdoing in neither kind of case requires an appeal to culpable ignorance. Both kinds of cases appear to involve causal deviance. However, I draw upon recent work on causal deviance to argue that any causal deviance in these cases does not fully excuse given the lack of intervening causes. (shrink)

Following the social conception of moral agency, this paper claims that many beings commonly exempted from moral responsibility, like young children, adults with late-stage dementia, and nonhuman animals, may nevertheless qualify as participants in moral responsibility practices. Blame and other moral responsibility responses are understood according to the communicative emotion account of the reactive attitudes. To blame someone means having an emotion episode that acts as a vehicle for conveying a particular moral content. Therefore, moral agency is argued to be (...) manifested in communicative exchanges between a claimant and a defendant. While many human and nonhuman agents are justifiably exempted from ascriptions of moral responsibility, this does not necessarily exclude such agents from the community of moral agents altogether. Toddlers and dogs, for instance, seem capable of other-directed reactive attitudes, like resentment, and could, therefore, qualify as participants in moral responsibility practices with respect to the claimant position. Therefore, we may have reason to adopt a distinct claimant-directed participant stance to some beings, even if they fail to qualify as apt targets of blame. This expanded theoretical room for moral agency is argued to make explicit further normative considerations. (shrink)

The wide variety of blame presents two difficult puzzles. Why are instances of blame categorized under so many different mental kinds, such as judgment, belief, emotion, action, intention, desire, and combinations of these? Why is “blame” used to describe both interpersonal reactions and mere causal attributions, such as blaming faulty brakes for a car crash? I introduce a new conception of blame, on which blame is attention to something as a source of badness. I argue that this view resolves both (...) puzzles and offers an independently appealing conception of blame. (shrink)

It is uncontroversial that something goes wrong with the blaming practices of hypocrites. However, it is more difficult to pinpoint exactly what is objectionable about their blaming practices. I contend that, just as epistemologists have recently done with blame, we can constructively treat hypocrisy as admitting of an epistemic species. This paper has two objectives: first, to identify the epistemic fault in epistemically hypocritical blame, and second, to explain why epistemically hypocritical blamers lose their standing to epistemically blame. I tackle (...) the first problem by appealing to an epistemic norm of consistency. I address the second by arguing that the epistemically hypocritical blamer commits to an opting-out of the set of shared epistemic standards that importantly underlies our standing to epistemically blame. I argue further that being epistemically hypocritical undermines a blamer's standing even to judge epistemically blameworthy. (shrink)

Most states in the United States have conscience laws protecting conscientious refusal to perform some medical service. Yet many state conscience laws protect providers from being even indirectly involved with some procedure they find objectionable, which can include not only referrals but also simply informing patients of medically indicated but morally contentious options. I argue that such policies are unjust, offering too much protection for integrity in the face of competing values and patient interests. In other words, these policies grant (...) too much weight to integrity. One promising response to this concern is that in addition to integrity, the state should protect professionals so that they avoid complicity that could undermine their moral right to hold others accountable. I argue that this response fails, since it is implausible that these professionals actually lose that right in such contexts. I conclude that these policies should be restricted to better protect patient interests. (shrink)

There is an ethics of blaming the person who deserves blame. The Christian scriptures imply the following no-vengeance condition: a person should not vengefully overtly blame a wrongdoer even if she gives the wrongdoer the exact negative treatment that he deserves. I explicate and defend this novel condition and argue that it demands a revolution in our blaming practices. First, I explain the no-vengeance condition. Second, I argue that the no-vengeance condition is often violated. The most common species of blame (...) involves anger; anger conceptually includes a desire for vengeance; and there are many pleasures in payback. Third, I clarify that it is possible to blame non-vengefully in anger and highlight three good uses for anger in non-vengeful blame. Fourth, I offer two reasons that justify the divine command prohibiting vengeance, and I note that the Christian God is merely sufficient to make non-vengeance morally obligatory. Fifth, I defend the no-vengeance condition against four biblical objections. (shrink)

When we learn that someone holds irrational beliefs, we often respond by reducing our epistemic trust in them. In this paper, I will propose a novel account of such trust reductions. The recently popular relationship-modification account (RMA) of epistemic blame will serve as a foil for this project. RMA says that epistemically blaming others for their epistemic failings involves modifying our epistemic relationships with them, paradigmatically via a reduction of epistemic trust. RMA has recently faced two challenges of extensional inadequacy, (...) which I will show result from a mistaken view about what type of response trust reductions are. I will draw on resources from legal theory to show that trust reductions bear all the hallmarks of so-called non-punitive measures, which serve preventative collective purposes. I will argue for an account of trust reductions as non-punitive epistemic measures that serve the purpose of preventing unreliable informants from negatively affecting the epistemic commons. My account explains when and why it is appropriate to reduce epistemic trust and shows where RMA goes wrong. (shrink)

Praise and blame can function to manage membership in informal social groups. We can be praised into groups, like if you remark on my good taste in music and invite me to have lunch with you. We can be blamed out of groups, like if I’m rude to your spouse and you stop inviting me to parties. These can move in the opposite direction, with praise removing you from a group and blame drawing you in. If we attend to the (...) way praise and blame shape our social world, we can revisit some debates about the ethics of praise and blame with new eyes. (shrink)

According to a prominent family of theories of blameworthiness, quality of will theories, a person is blameworthy for an action if and only if, and to the degree that, her will manifested in that action is bad. A puzzle for such theories is that (the degree of) blameworthiness appears to be affected by several factors beyond how bad the manifested will is. Among such factors are certain types of incompetence of the agent, the outcome of the action, the developmental history (...) of the agent (e.g., an unfortunate upbringing), and the time between action and blame. I defend a novel account of the nature of blame by appeal to its unique capacity to explain away these puzzling intuitions in a unified way. I argue that the account, in addition to being independently plausible, allows us to view those intuitions as products of a systematic yet understandable confusion between the issue of blameworthiness and some other separate issue. (shrink)

A notable feature of our moral and legal practices is the recognition of privileges, powers, and entitlements belonging to a select group of individuals in virtue of their status as victims of wrongful conduct. A philosophical literature on relational normativity purports to account for this status in terms of such notions as interests, rights, and attitudes of disregard. This paper argues that such individualistic notions cannot account for prevailing and intuitive ways of demarcating the class of victims. The focus of (...) the discussion is the wrongful infliction of harm, and the mediating role played by impersonal “danger-making properties” in the determination of the class of victims. Beginning with a treatment of one of the most well-known discussions of negligently-inflicted harm — from the most famous case of the American common law tradition, Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. — the analysis is then extended to the morality of harm-doing more broadly, negligent and intentional alike. The paper’s chief targets are interest theories of rights — including contractualist theories of moral claim-rights of the kind defended by R. Jay Wallace — and neo-Strawsonian Quality of Will theories of “moral injury”. (shrink)

I argue that we have reasons to blame wrongdoers for their own sake. Then, I offer an account of the nature of these reasons. One of blame’s key functions, I suggest, is to express concern for wrongdoers’ quality of will—a form of concern I call contribution recognition. We can disrespect people by treating them as though the quality of will expressed in their moral contributions (specifically, their blameworthy actions) does not much matter. Conversely, we can affirm a person’s moral significance (...) or significance to us by expressing concern with her quality of will. (shrink)

Blame is typically justified on the basis of retrospective desert. However, an emerging strand of account gives an alternative justification for blame: the forward-looking, or proleptic, effects of that blame in cultivating a desirable form of agency, shared moral considerations responsive agency. These instrumentalist accounts differ as to their grounding conditions: the agential features that licence blame in cases of moral failure. Some accounts advocate grounding such justified blame in terms of whether or not the agent meets the condition of (...) influenceability; others advocate the condition of reasons responsiveness. I will argue that influenceability is unsuccessful as a grounding condition: such accounts appear to licence blame in too many cases of bad action (or omission). In order to not do so, it is unclear how they can avoid either reducing to another kind of grounding condition, such as reasons-responsiveness, or abandoning any attempt to posit a substantive grounding condition. However, the reasons responsiveness condition has also been attacked: it appears to be vulnerable to a mismatch between the proleptic goals of the accounts to which it is a part, and to empirical evidence suggesting an apparent situational lack of control. I will defend reasons-responsiveness as a grounding condition; however, I will suggest that instrumentalist accounts should be focused less on their grounding conditions and on blame, and more on the empirical efficacy of our reactive attitudes in scaffolding moral agency. In light of these considerations, I will suggest a friendly revision to Vargas’ grounding condition drawing on Fischer and Ravizza, Holroyd, and Calhoun that, I think, better accommodates the proleptic concerns that motivate Vargas’ and McGeer’s accounts. (shrink)

Why should we blame one another? That is, when are we morally responsible; what, if anything, justifies us in blaming one another? Blame seems to stand in need of justification given how unpleasant it is to blame, and, especially, to be blamed. -/- In the philosophical literature, blame is typically justified on the basis of backwards-looking considerations; did the purportedly blameworthy person manifest the right kind of free-will, or control, and epistemic awareness in order to be held responsible? Much of (...) this debate has, historically, turned primarily on theoretical and metaphysical considerations. For example, it has been argued that the fact that our present action is entirely the product of the past states of the world in conjunction with the laws of nature, and we entirely lack control over both those past states of the world and the laws of nature, but that these may, in conjunction, fully explain our present action. Thus, one might worry that we never actually fully manifest the free-will, or control, necessary to be held responsible. -/- This dissertation is not centrally concerned with this sort of metaphysical debate. Instead, I argue that even putting this metaphysical debate aside, evidence from psychology research poses several grave, and perhaps insurmountable, challenges for accounts justifying blame on the basis of backwards-looking considerations. -/- These are, first, the Situationist Threat, considered in chapters 1 and 2, according to which fine-grained situational features have a surprisingly large effect on our capacity to act in line with moral considerations in circumstances in which those features are present. For example, merely being in a group of people, being exposed to loud noises, or being asked to do something by a man in a white lab coat, might, surprisingly, undermine our free-will. This both threatens several theoretical assumptions made by standard retrospectively-justified accounts of moral responsibility, but also suggests that we may lack free-will more often than we might have thought. -/- In addition, in chapters 2 and 3, I develop the argument that the Manipulationist Threat poses a potentially intractable problem for such backwards-looking justifications of blame. This threat is that we might be subject to a particularly pernicious form of manipulation—what I call valuational manipulation—much more often than we might have thought. Valuational manipulation is the manipulation of our beliefs and desires in a way that bypasses our evaluative control, i.e., our capacity to adjudicate our beliefs and desires in a manner reflective of our take on the world. I claim, citing evidence from psychology research on choice blindness, confirmation bias, and the truth effect, that we may be far more commonly subject to valuational manipulation than we might have thought, and in particular over social media. This is a problem both because it suggests we may commonly be subject to manipulation—and hence, arguably, diminished in our moral responsibility—but also because it targets what I claim are the theoretical roots of backwards-looking justifications of blame. These are that most such accounts adjudicate blameworthiness on the basis of an assessment of whether or not an agent’s action is appropriately reflective of the agent’s own beliefs and desires. The concern here is that if an agent has been manipulated, then why should this sort of correspondence suggest that the individual manifests the right kind of control, or free-will, to be held responsible? -/- I suggest that these considerations should motivate us towards a set of alternative accounts of the justification of blame, presently emerging in the philosophical literature. These alternative accounts—called instrumentalist accounts--justify blame on the basis of its effects. That is, they claim that blame is justified given that it serves to cultivate moral agency, i.e., the capacity to act appropriately in line with shared moral considerations. These instrumentalist accounts claim, further, that blame is a central and critical explanation of how we develop into moral agents. One benefit of these accounts, I suggest, is that they do not seem to me to be similarly vulnerable to the Situationist Threat and the Manipulationist Threat. -/- However, in chapter 4, I (along with my co-author for this chapter, Makan Nojoumian) claim that instrumentalist accounts are, instead, vulnerable to other empirical evidence from psychology research. That is, if one justifies blame on the basis of its effects, then it is critical that the evidence shows that blame actually has those effects. However, we argue that the evidence appears to show that blame does not have these effects. Or, at least, we suggest, it does not have these effects directly on those subject to blame. Instead, we claim, citing evidence from the moral development and prosocial behaviour psychology literature that blame might, instead, primarily be indirectly effective on those who witness that blame, but not on those subject to it. This should be unsurprising: we are not ourselves often subject to blame, but we regularly witness moralized behaviour among friends, colleagues, relations, and in media. This, we claim, explains what might otherwise be puzzling, which is how we develop an awareness of moral norms absent being blamed for failing to adhere to those norms ourselves. -/- In chapter 5, I consider another problem for such instrumentalist accounts: who, precisely, should we blame to cultivate moral agency? I argue that extant instrumentalist accounts appear to cast this net either too widely, or too narrowly; they either expand, or constrict, the set of appropriate targets for blame too much. I construct an emendation to what I take to be the least problematic instrumentalist account in order to avoid this problem. However, I suggest that insofar as such accounts are justified in terms of cultivating moral agency, that it is perhaps a mistake that they focus so squarely on blame as being what centrally cultivates moral agency. Instead, I gesture towards additional research in psychology suggesting that whether or not people develop an appropriate responsiveness to shared moral considerations in a given situation may turn on a variety of considerations presently underexplored in the philosophy literature. (shrink)

An emerging strand of research claims that blame is justified on the basis of its instrumental role in serving to ‘cultivate’ or ‘scaffold’ moral agency in those to whom it is directed. On these instrumentalist accounts, our actual collective responsiveness to moral considerations is largely explained by the scaffolding or cultivating force of blame as directed at us. We believe that there is some reason to be sceptical of the instrumental role assigned to blame on these accounts. This is because (...) there is evidence from the psychology literature on prosocial behaviour and moral development that blame may be directly ineffective; it may be ineffective in inculcating moral norms in the children and young adults to whom it is directed. We concede that blame may have this proximate instrumental role in scaffolding moral behaviour in adults, however we believe that such accounts overlook what we think is likely the more central instrumental role of blame. This is the role blame plays in the moral ecology: the models, narratives, scripts, and cultural frameworks that we internalize. The most central instrumental role of blame, we claim, is to indirectly foster moral considerations responsive agency in third parties through modelling behaviour observed in the moral ecology. (shrink)

I have often blamed others for their repugnant, unethical, or irrational beliefs. However, considering how irrelevant influences affect beliefs makes it seem as though no one controls which beliefs they hold. In the burgeoning literature on epistemic blame, epistemologists have widely assumed that beliefs can be an appropriate target-class of epistemic blame: that we are right to blame others for their beliefs. In response to this consensus, I raise a concern about resultant luck from the moral responsibility literature and consider (...) the ‘rationalist’ response to this problem: that any appropriate target of blame must be immune to resultant luck. I import both the concept of resultant luck and the rationalist reply into the epistemic domain, arguing that all beliefs are inappropriate targets of epistemic blame because they are subject to epistemic resultant luck. But I do not directly advocate for an eliminativist conclusion; instead, I suggest that we may still aptly target blame at the quality of one’s inquiry: the viciousness demonstrated in an investigation, regardless of how one’s beliefs (un)luckily turn out. Thus, one can be aptly blamed for a true belief if arrived at in a vicious manner and praised for a false belief if arrived at virtuously. (shrink)

On the “Isolation Account” of belief’s ethical significance, our beliefs can be noninstrumentally ethically significant independently of their epistemic status and in isolation from other attitudes or actions. However, critics object that fundamental ethical significance should instead be located in nondoxastic attitudes in belief’s vicinity. This article develops an alternative view—the “Constitutive Inheritance Account”—on which our beliefs can inherit ethical significance from the more fundamental ethical significance of the attitudes they partly or fully constitute. The Constitutive Inheritance Account incorporates the (...) objection’s insight while accommodating the intuitions motivating the Isolation Account and better explaining belief’s noninstrumental ethical significance. (shrink)

Pessimistic empirical evidence about the reformatory and deterrent effects of punitive treatment poses a challenge for all justificatory theories of punishment. Yet, the dominant progressive view remains that punishment is required for the most serious crimes. This paper outlines an empirically sensitive prospectus for justifying punitive treatment through understanding the importance of reintegration. On this view, punishment can be viewed as a preferred alternative to the rigours of social ostracism, a common way of dealing with offenders in lieu of formal (...) criminal justice. Adopting reintegration as a primary aim encourages taking a longer view which focuses on desistance from criminality rather than only on reform at the point of release from formal punishment. The view outlined in this paper enables a vindication of reintegrative punishment even when it is not the most immediately efficient means of reforming offenders. In making this argument, I develop the modern retributive platform in criminal justice theory, identify various overlooked yet key nuances in the relationship between reintegration and reform, and argue for greater theoretical and practical attention to how the state can make the communities they serve more receptive to reintegrating offenders. (shrink)

Blaming others for things that are not our business can attract charges of meddling and corresponding dismissals of blame. Such charges are contentious because the content and applicability conditions of anti‐meddling norms can be difficult to specify. An unappreciated reason they can be contentious is that it is often not settled in advance whether some wrongdoing is or is not the business of a would‐be blamer. Rather than pointing out violation of a pre‐established anti‐meddling norm, charges of meddling may sometimes (...) be aiming to put such a norm in place. Grounds of anti‐meddling norms, including privacy, intimacy, and respect for victims, support giving those involved significant latitude to set their own boundaries on appropriate blame. This brings out the more general point that norms of blame, including standing norms, are often up for negotiation, and dismissals of blame can be moves in such a negotiation of trying to establish boundaries on blame, rather than merely pointing out violations of pre‐established boundaries. (shrink)

It is widely held that whether a person is morally responsible for an outcome partly depends on whether certain causal relations obtain between that person and the outcome. This paper argues that, regardless of whether the preceding claim about moral responsibility is true, moral blameworthiness is independent of such causal considerations. This conclusion is motivated by considering cases from Carolina Sartorio and Sara Bernstein. The causal structures of these cases are complex. Sartorio and Bernstein believe that reaching conclusions about moral (...) responsibility and blameworthiness requires wading through this complexity. But it is argued here that getting clear on these causal structures does not help us assess blameworthiness (regardless of the relevance of such considerations for drawing conclusions about moral responsibility). Moral blameworthiness simply does not turn on the considerations relevant to figuring out whether an agent causally contributed to an outcome. (shrink)

Blame abounds in our everyday lives, perhaps no more so than on social media. With the rise of social networking platforms, we have access to more information about others’ blameworthy behaviour and larger audiences to whom we can express our blame. But these audiences, while large, are typically not diverse. Social media tends to create what I call “blame bubbles”: systems in which expressions of blame are shared amongst agents with similar moral outlooks while dissenting views are excluded. Many have (...) criticised the blame expressed on social media, arguing that it is often unfitting, excessive, and counterproductive. In this talk, I’ll argue that while blame bubbles can be guilty of these charges, they are also well placed to do important moral work. I’ll then attempt to identify the causal source of these bad-making features and explore potential structural interventions that can make blame bubbles better at performing their moral function and less likely to generate harmful consequences. (shrink)

Is there a place for blame in healthcare? An interesting exchange on this question took place between Daniel Tigard and Elizabeth Duthie, Ian Fischer and Richard Frankel in 2019. In his central appeal to self-blame, I argue that Tigard was successful—and actually did not go far enough—in identifying a place for ‘notions of blame’ in healthcare. However, I contend that his critics were right to disavow the culture of blame and his notion of taking the blame for unavoidable harm. I (...) argue that even outside a culture of blame, there can still be a (minor) place for blaming others as well as ourselves for avoidable medical errors (even the first-time unintentional ones). (shrink)

This book is about our practice of criticizing one another for epistemic failings. We clearly evaluate and critique one another for forming unjustified beliefs, harbouring biases, and pursuing faulty methods of inquiry. But what is the nature of this criticism? Does it ever rise to the level of blame? The question is puzzling because there are competing sources of pressure in our intuitions about “epistemic blame”, ones not easy to reconcile. The more blame-like a response is, the less at home (...) in the epistemic domain it seems — but the more at home in the epistemic domain a response is, the less blame-like it seems. These competing sources of pressure constitute a puzzle about epistemic blame. The most promising solution to this puzzle focuses on the interpersonal side of epistemic normativity. Members of an epistemic community stand in an “epistemic relationship”, and epistemic blame is a way of modifying this relationship. Understanding epistemic blame as a distinctive kind of relationship modification locates a response that is both robustly blame-like, and entirely at home in the epistemic domain. Epistemic relationships can also illuminate a unique set of issues in the ethics of epistemic blame, ones that mirror corresponding issues in the ethics of moral blame. The book examines the scope of appropriate epistemic blame, standing to epistemically blame, and the value of epistemic blame in our social and political lives. Throughout the investigation, a better understanding of the parallels and points of interaction between the epistemic and other normative domains emerges. (shrink)

Here is a crucial principle for debates about moral luck, responsibility, and free will: a subject is blameworthy for an act only if, in acting, she did what she ought not to have done. That is, ‘blameworthiness’ implies ‘ought not’ (BION). There are some good reasons to accept BION, but whether we accept it mainly depends on complex questions about the objectivity of ought and the subjectivity of blameworthiness. This paper offers an exploratory defence of BION: it gives three _prima (...) facie_ reasons to accept it, provides a plausible interpretation of it, and shows how holding out against objections can yield fruitful lessons. Five objections to BION are considered: the objection from conscience, from reasons, from suberogation, from objectivity, and from excuses. Their main problem is to either over-subjectify blameworthiness or to over-objectify obligations. To accept BION, we must occupy a desirable middle ground. (shrink)