In a brief blip of the book, Sher argues that Scanlon's argument doesn't fully account for cases in which we blame strangers - for that does not resemble anything like a relationship. However, I think that Sher dismisses Scanlon's argument of relationships with strangers too quickly. There is some form of a relationship between people and those around them that require no interpersonal relationship with them.There must be some sort of tie between you and other people you don't know. There seems to be some significance to relationships with strangers.
Perhaps Scanlon doesn't delve too far into this idea, but I'll give it a try.
In criminal matters (the part of social punishment), there is this idea of the social contract. Those who live within the society subscribe to these regulations and those who do not are punished. I know that Scanlon does not think the point and purpose of blame is to use it as a social punishment. If it was a part of the point and purpose of blame, then the purpose of having a social contract, built on this third party relationship, works in such a way that it is effect a tactic of self policing. If you run a red light at a busy intersection, people will find some fault with your moral character. If you cut someone off turning on a road, people think your moral value diminishes.
One could also consider that many people act in such a way that conforms them to what is socially acceptable. So in that it does not provoke heavy criticism from other people. This type of action would rely on this idea of judgement or, perhaps the social contract (in more of a culture sense, less criminal). Like as an example scenario, there is a mother with two young children in a busy restaurant. Both of her children are unruly and start screaming and crying - most parents would react in a way to calm their children down so they do not disturb the other customers. She feels that these people are judging her on her parenting skills and her inability to control her children.
Take a case of a woman who gets an abortion and is walking out of a clinic. Cue in the highly conservative, catholic devotee. Those who see the woman walking out of the clinic cast blame on her. They have this third party judgement thing going on. They find offense with this woman's actions that they have no interpersonal relationship with.
As I have tried to allude to, I think that there is something to Scanlon's stranger relationships. Perhaps it is something that Scanlon doesn't address all that well.
I think that Scanlon's account has merit for stranger blaming... but not because we actually have relationships with strangers. After thinking about it that seems a bit to far fetched, we would have to define "relationship" so broadly as to eliminate its meaning. I think that the capacity for a relationship is more important when it comes to stranger blaming than the actual existence of a relationship.
ReplyDeleteTo be more clear, when we blame a stranger for some action, we are not actually declaring (or introspectively thinking) that our relationship has changed... we are instead declaring that they did something wrong, and that if we were to enter into a relationship, we would take that action into account.
We don't blame a stranger for tripping because, if we WERE in a relationship, this would not be a reason to think the stranger could do ill will to us. But we do blame them for stealing, or killing, to pranking, or for being negligent... because those actions demonstrate potential nastiness or ill will in a relationship.
So I think Scanlon is right that when we blame we declare a change in relationship status (or a perceived change). When it comes to strangers (or persons in the past) this has nothing to do with any current relationship and instead everything to do with potential relations.
I think there’s a distinction that needs to be drawn regarding relationships in a meaningful sense, and relationships in a loosest semantic sense. We don’t typically talk about ourselves as being in relationships with strangers. I’d go so far as to assert that in common language, affirming the existence of a “relationship” implies that the two parties have acknowledged each other as individuals. When talking about relationships, it may be more fruitful to focus on the relationships that really matter to us as humans. By the loosest definition, a relationship can be viewed as simply any sort of connection shared between people. For example, the reckless driver in Franqui’s comment creates a “relationship” with those others around him, because his actions have begun to affect them and there is some interpersonal impact. However, when discussing relationships, I think it would simply be odd and inappropriate to talk about your relationship to the reckless driver. As a more extreme example, it would seem misleading to describe yourself as being in a relationship with all of humanity.
ReplyDeleteWithout getting into details on Sher’s overall thesis, I do think we ought to avoid talking about being in relationships with strangers. Just because we have ties to somebody doesn’t seem sufficient to constitute a relationship. In the example of the reckless driver, our relationship seems less with the driver and more with the act itself. What Franqui has illustrated, I think, is not that we can have relationships with strangers, but rather that we can experience certain attitudes (e.g. blame) without the explicit need for a relationship.