PEETERS ONLINE JOURNALS
Peeters Online Bibliographies
Peeters Publishers
this issue
  previous article in this issuenext article in this issue  

Document Details :

Title: The Fragility of our Moral Standing to Blame
Author(s): RIVERA LÓPEZ, Eduardo
Journal: Ethical Perspectives
Volume: 24    Issue: 3   Date: 2017   
Pages: 333-361
DOI: 10.2143/EP.24.3.3248535

Abstract :
The question I address in this article is why, and under what conditions, a person can lose her moral standing to blame others for their actions. I defend two related claims. The first is that blaming is justifiable in fewer cases than we might expect. This conclusion depends on my second claim: our moral standing (or authority) to blame is more resistant to moral luck than moral responsibility (or blameworthiness) is often assumed to be. I consider different kinds of loss of standing to blame and focus on a specific kind: what has been called (and I will call) tu quoque arguments (‘you have no moral standing to blame me because you did the same’). Then I focus on the relationship between some specific cases of tu quoque and moral luck (and, more precisely, circumstantial moral luck). I defend the claim that the success of the tu quoque argument (and the corresponding loss of moral standing) is immune to moral circumstantial luck. From this claim I try to follow a number of considerations oriented to establishing the scope of moral standing and suggest a unifying view that accounts for my previous analysis and, at the same time, rescues some features of our commonsensical practice.

download article




35.175.187.91.