The moral function of standing to blame

To have moral standing to blame is to have a right to blame. But what kind of right is it, and what follows from having or lacking standing? I will argue that moral standing to blame should be understood as a power according to Wesley Hohfeld’s classification of rights (1913). It is a normative power to call for an uptake of blame from someone who is liable to blame, i.e., someone who is blameworthy. The function of standing norms, I will argue, is to protect the freedom and interests of persons who are or could be blamed. I make three further claims in distinction to recent scholarship on standing: I argue that the concept of standing does not apply at all to private blame, only to expressed blame; I claim that standing cannot be understood as only a privilege-right; and I argue that there is not a conceptual asymmetry between standing to blame and standing to forgive.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
De Ethica A Journal of Philosophical Theological and Applied Ethics
Published
2025-04-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3384/de-ethica.2001-8819.258425
Primary Topic
Ethics in medical practice
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The moral function of standing to blame

David Chelsom Vogt
De Ethica A Journal of Philosophical Theological and Applied Ethics
Ethics in medical practice
article

The moral function of standing to blame

David Chelsom Vogt
article en

Abstract

To have moral standing to blame is to have a right to blame. But what kind of right is it, and what follows from having or lacking standing? I will argue that moral standing to blame should be understood as a power according to Wesley Hohfeld’s classification of rights (1913). It is a normative power to call for an uptake of blame from someone who is liable to blame, i.e., someone who is blameworthy. The function of standing norms, I will argue, is to protect the freedom and interests of persons who are or could be blamed. I make three further claims in distinction to recent scholarship on standing: I argue that the concept of standing does not apply at all to private blame, only to expressed blame; I claim that standing cannot be understood as only a privilege-right; and I argue that there is not a conceptual asymmetry between standing to blame and standing to forgive.

De Ethica A Journal of Philosophical Theological and Applied EthicsVol. 8(4)
University of Bergen (NO)
Openalex Percentile: Top 88%
Ethics in medical practice
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.