{"title":"Blame, Nudging, and the Actual Moral Relationship","authors":"Nicholas Sars","doi":"10.1080/09672559.2023.2169740","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT T. M. Scanlon posits a universal moral relationship in response to the worry that his relational approach to blame cannot answer the question of how strangers can fittingly blame one another. However, commentators have noted that appealing to universal moral standards seems to explicitly deviate from a relational approach’s basis in actual relationship norms. This paper argues that Scanlon’s idea of a moral relationship can nevertheless provide a basis for response to the problem of strangers if we recognize that actual and ideal moral relationships both play a role within the relational approach. An interesting consequence of this recognition is that it seems to undermine the moral relationship’s universality. However, a presumptive case for assuming the relationship exists even between strangers can be found in seeing our blaming practices as akin to public policy nudges, where blame operates like an opt-out choice architecture with respect to the moral relationship. On this understanding, though the moral relationship is escapable, individuals are naturally encouraged to participate through the expression of interpersonal attitudes that communicate relational norms and expectations.","PeriodicalId":51828,"journal":{"name":"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES","volume":"31 1","pages":"18 - 35"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09672559.2023.2169740","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
ABSTRACT T. M. Scanlon posits a universal moral relationship in response to the worry that his relational approach to blame cannot answer the question of how strangers can fittingly blame one another. However, commentators have noted that appealing to universal moral standards seems to explicitly deviate from a relational approach’s basis in actual relationship norms. This paper argues that Scanlon’s idea of a moral relationship can nevertheless provide a basis for response to the problem of strangers if we recognize that actual and ideal moral relationships both play a role within the relational approach. An interesting consequence of this recognition is that it seems to undermine the moral relationship’s universality. However, a presumptive case for assuming the relationship exists even between strangers can be found in seeing our blaming practices as akin to public policy nudges, where blame operates like an opt-out choice architecture with respect to the moral relationship. On this understanding, though the moral relationship is escapable, individuals are naturally encouraged to participate through the expression of interpersonal attitudes that communicate relational norms and expectations.
t·m·斯坎伦(T. M. Scanlon)提出了一种普遍的道德关系,以回应人们的担忧,即他对指责的关系方法无法回答陌生人如何恰当地相互指责的问题。然而,评论家们注意到,诉诸普遍的道德标准似乎明显偏离了关系方法在实际关系规范中的基础。本文认为,如果我们认识到实际的和理想的道德关系都在关系方法中发挥作用,那么斯坎伦关于道德关系的观点仍然可以为应对陌生人问题提供基础。这种认识的一个有趣的结果是,它似乎破坏了道德关系的普遍性。然而,假设即使是陌生人之间也存在这种关系的一个假设案例,可以看到我们的指责行为类似于公共政策的推动,其中指责就像一种选择退出的选择架构,与道德关系有关。在这种理解下,尽管道德关系是可逃避的,但个体自然会被鼓励通过表达人际态度来参与,这种态度传达了关系规范和期望。
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Philosophical Studies (IJPS) publishes academic articles of the highest quality from both analytic and continental traditions and provides a forum for publishing on a broader range of issues than is currently available in philosophical journals. IJPS also publishes annual special issues devoted to key thematic areas or to critical engagements with contemporary philosophers of note. Through its Discussion section, it provides a lively forum for exchange of ideas and encourages dialogue and mutual comprehension across all philosophical traditions. The journal also contains an extensive book review section, including occasional book symposia. It also provides Critical Notices which review major books or themes in depth.