1. Strawson thinks that the truth/falsity of determinism thesis cannot be relevant to how we choose to act (such as the choice of suspending a certain kind of reactive attitudes), nor is it capable of inducing decay & repudiation of a kind of reactive attitudes.
1.1. Are we left with, after this realization, any real necessity to think about determinism apart from pure theoretical curiosity about this topic?
1.2. Outside of reactive attitudes & their practices, can theorization be properly grounded? (Since Strawson strongly thinks reactive attitudes are only legitimately grounded in the “general framework of attitudes”, something radically closed to external theorization.)
1.3. Is a kind of new theorization at least “internal” to “general framework of attitudes” & their actual practices conceivable? I omit the conceivability of a new theorization to be also called for by the framework itself, as it seems to be even more unlikely.
2. [Historically mainstream objection from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy] Can we make judgments about reactive attitudes outside of the viewpoint of actual practice? One example would be trying to judge the reactive attitudes of a member in another moral community. As long as we judge, we are judging from the backdrop of a moral community that is specified in time, space, cultures etc., however, the subject we try to judge very commonly comes from time, space & cultures vastly different & distant from the specific backdrop we’re in. Can judgments of this kind ever be justified according to Strawson?
2.1. If it can be justified, can it ever be justified for the distant subject himself? (For it would seem useless if our judgment of him can only matter, can only be justified within our specific time, space and cultures, where the act of judgment actually takes place. The fear that such judgments cannot be justified at all for a member outside of “this” moral community can be likened to the fear for a kind of moral community-level solipsism, trapped within only one set of time, space and cultures.)
2.2. One way that such a judgment & its justification can be possible, makes use of the moral community’s ability to modify itself. One implication is that for judgments of out-community subject to be possibly justifiable at all, mere in-community practice cannot suffice.
3. [Historically mainstream objection, from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy] Since reactive attitudes are so deeply rooted within us like our natures, can they be dislodged externally at all?
3.1. One instance of external power of dislodgment of prior attitudes (therefore and objection to Strawson) is the common theoretical intuition about incompatibilist determinism, a practical fact that is not processed by intellectualization. For example, we are moved to suspend our Participant Attitude more, if we learn that the offender had a history of extreme abuse or deprivation. We naturally do so because we do have the intuition that the abused is more “determined” externally to have negative reactive attitudes; he was “altered” by those unnatural abuses to be prone to negative reactive attitudes. The described sequence of facts poses threat to Strawson because this intuition is theoretical, outside of the actual practices or reactive attitudes, the sphere of just “ordinary interpersonal relationships”.
4. The picture Strawson painted for the community of normal, mature & responsible humans, has the manifestations of good wills, ill wills & indifference as its most basic structure. This picture doesn’t essentially prevent against solipsism, as one can be admitted as a good member of the community as long as one manifests good wills (plus one is skillful in manifesting good wills in such a way, that others can perceive that one genuinely has those good wills, implied under manifestations), when whether one privately harbors those good will is not important. According to Strawson’s picture, one can very well be a moral “philosophical Zombie”. Would you interpret the inability to prevent against these “Zombies” as a disadvantage?
Shared by: Anonymous