Abstract

To be blameworthy, according to T. M. Scanlon’s recent account, is to hold attitudes which violate the standards of a particular relationship, and to blame another is to alter one’s relationship appropriately with the blameworthy party in light of those attitudes. I make three objections. First, relationship-types do not determine the standards relative to which Scanlon defines impairment. Second, the notion of an ‘ideal’ relationship used by Scanlon is of no use when providing normative guidance to participants in non-ideal relationships—which is to say, that it’s no use to anybody. Third, that we cannot know how to alter relationships with someone at fault without knowing whether they are to blame; hence one cannot simply equate blaming someone with altering a relationship. I conclude with a discussion of the role that philosophy might play in understanding our relationships with other people.