The Three-Fold Significance of the Blaming Emotions

Cogley, Zac

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199694853.003.0009

Cited by 18 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Emotion theories of blame: Emotion theories of blame usually claim that blame is anger, or a type of anger such as resentment or indignation. 28 In turn, these theories claim that the anger that is blame involves desires to engage in: 'sanctioning responses… such as avoidance, denunciation, reproach, censure'; 29 'certain adverse or unwelcome treatment… "sanctions"'; 30 'to scold or punish'; 31 'sanctioning people who are appraised as wrongful'; 32 'aggressive and sanctioning behavior'. 33 In most cases these authors do not give theories of the aim of sanction, punishment.…”

Section: The Claimmentioning

confidence: 99%

It cannot be fitting to blame God

Hunt

2023

The Heythrop Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper argues that it cannot be fitting to blame God. I show that divine immutability, even on a weak conception, implies that God's ethical character cannot change. I then argue that blame aims at a change in the ethical character of the one blamed. This claim is directly intuitive, explains a wide set of intuitions about when blame is unfitting, and is implied by most of the theories blame offered in the philosophical literature. Since blame targeted at God aims to change God's ethical character, an impossibility, such blame is not fitting. I then draw on this conclusion to sketch a new theodicy. I argue that a necessary condition on being blameworthy is that one can be blamed under some possible condition. So, God cannot be blameworthy. Further, I argue that if someone cannot be blameworthy, then they cannot do wrong. Wrong actions tend to make us blameworthy, but since God cannot be blameworthy nothing can tend to make him blameworthy – God cannot do wrong.

show abstract

Section: The Claimmentioning

confidence: 99%

It cannot be fitting to blame God

Hunt

2023

The Heythrop Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…I.e., cases in which the protagonist does not stand to lose much.4 For brevity's sake, I will often refer to such conduct as 'good but not required'. 5 E.g.,Cogley (2013),Menges (2017), Shoemaker (2018), Strawson (1962,Tognazzini (2013),Wolf (2011).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Blameless Moral Criticism – the Case of Moral Disappointment

Schönherr

2022

Ethic Theory Moral Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In discussing the ways in which we hold each other accountable for immoral conduct, philosophers have often focused on blame, aiming to specify adequate responses to wrongdoing. In contrast, theorizing about the ways we can appropriately respond to minor moral mistakes -i.e., criticizable conduct that is bad but not wrong -has largely been neglected. My first goal in this paper is, thus, to draw attention to this blind spot and argue that a separate account of blameless moral criticism is desirable. My second goal is to propose one way to explicate the contrast between blaming and blameless moral criticism in terms of the contrast between moral anger and moral disappointment: while moral anger, as many argue, is an appropriate response to moral wrongdoing, moral disappointment, but not moral anger, is an appropriate response to these minor moral mistakes.

show abstract

The emotion account of blame

Menges

2016

Philos Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Three-Fold Significance of the Blaming Emotions

Cited by 18 publications

References 35 publications

It cannot be fitting to blame God

It cannot be fitting to blame God

Blameless Moral Criticism – the Case of Moral Disappointment

The emotion account of blame

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About