Blame: Its Nature and Norms

by D. Justin Coates (Editor), Neal A. Tognazzini (Editor)

One mark of interpersonal relationships is a tendency to blame. But what precise evaluations and responses constitute blame? Is it most centrally a judgment, or is it an emotion, or something else? Does blame express a demand, or embody a protest, or does it simply mark an impaired relationship? What accounts for its force or sting, and how similar is it to punishment?

The essays in this volume explore answers to these (and other) questions about the nature of blame, but they also explore the various norms that govern the propriety of blame. The traditional question is whether anyone ever deserves to be blamed, but the essays here provide a fresh perspective by focusing on blame from the blamer's perspective instead. Is our tendency to blame a vice, something we should work to replace with more humane ways of relating, or does it rather lie at the very heart of a commitment to morality? What can we legitimately expect of each other, and in general, what sort of attitude do would-be blamers need to have in order to have the standing to blame? Hypocritical or self-righteous blame seems objectionable, but why?

The contributions to this volume aim to give us a fuller picture of the nature and norms of blame, and more generally of the promises and perils of membership in the human moral community.

Genres: Philosophy

332 pages, Hardcover

First published December 27, 2012

Reviews

[Lane Wilkinson · Rating 4 out of 5]

So, contemporary interest in blame can be traced back to Strawson's landmark 1962 essay 'Freedom and Resentment', but there hasn't been much written in the intervening 50 years. Scanlon's 2008 Moral Dimensions: Permissibility, Meaning, Blame and Sher's 2006 In Praise of Blame stand out as the dominant recent treatments, but there hasn't really been an ecumenical survey until now. This is definitely recommended for anyone interested in the state of the art in moral responsibility. And, especially, for anyone wanting to follow-up on Scanlon's 2008 argument. Here, he directly addresses his critics and fine-tunes his "interpersonal relationships" account. I also really liked Derek Pereboom's skeptical treatment of blame and Angela Smith's functional account.