Basic desert of reactive emotions

Abstract

In this paper, I explore the idea that someone can deserve resentment or other reactive emotions for what she does by attention to three psychological functions of such emotions -appraisal, communication, and sanction -that I argue ground claims of their desert. I argue that attention to these functions helps to elucidate the moral aims of reactive emotions and to distinguish the distinct claims of desert, as opposed to other moral considerations.

Forgiveness and the Multiple Functions of Anger

“…we think the answer to this question has to do with the fact that anger has a social function and, more specifically, a communicative function (read also Averill 1982, 3-32;Cogley 2013aCogley , 2013bKeltner and Haidt 1999;Macnamara 2013a;Parkinson 1996;Strawson 1962, 21-22). The communicative function or goal of anger is to convey to someone that she has done something wrong.…”

“…We can explicate this fact by appealing to what we will call the sanctioning function of anger. The sanctioning function of anger is to impose unwanted costs on the wrongdoer aimed at expressing condemnation of his wrongful conduct (Allais 2008, 48;Cogley 2013aCogley , 2013b. These costs are imposed in three main ways.…”

“…3 There are disagreements about how exactly to interpret the appraisal at stake in the case of moral anger. 4 But in what follows we will embrace the view defended by Zac Cogley (2013aCogley ( , 2013b. According to his view, the appraisal at the heart of moral anger is of some person (the wrongdoer) as doing wrong out of ill will toward or insufficient moral concern for another person (the victim).…”