Smith's piece was very interesting. It does in fact address something that Scanlon completely left out, unexpressed blame. My issue is that while interesting this serves little purpose. She doesn't show blame to have a different nature than that which Scanlon claims she merely shows that it is not always expressed. Yes she talks about a lot more than that but that pretty much sums up what she is adding to the discussion rather than how she attacks others views. She does give a more complete account of reactive attitudes but the part she adds isn't necessary for expressing the nature of blame this kind of argument argues nor is it a defense against any of the counter arguements that I have seen expressed.
I enjoyed reading this piece but at the end I was rather disappointed not to see anything being achieved, Smith's moral protest doesn't allow for answers to new examples it doesn't even explain all the examples Scanlon already could. It simply says that people don't always express reactive attitudes which Scanlon doesn't actually say but I never saw him claim that we reacted every single time we blamed someone.
I agree that Smith's ideas are quite interesting to read about and to think about, but what Smith doesn't seem to fully explain are the true differences between moral protest and blame and how these two can have different structures and rules associated with them.
ReplyDeleteThe similarities I see between the two seem to be that they both can be thought about and intentive without being expressed or meaning to be acknowledged. In this, I would have to believe that blame and moral protest neither need another human being's inference nor actual physical displaying of the reactive attitudes. They might share the same point and purpose, which would be to actually make any notable difference to affect relationships/the general "moral goodness" of the world and society, but this criteria does not need to be met for these certain "actions" to be considered blame or moral protest.
The only difference I could possibly see between the two would be that moral protest makes it sound as though it requires an audience to be protest, whereas blame can be done without the audience's attention. But nonetheless, they are essentially the same and share the same point and purpose anyway, so what's the point of adding it? I stand in the group defending the idea that moral protest shouldn't be, and is seemingly unnecessary to be, added on as another focus of moral tool to change relationships.