
The Beam and the Mote
On Blame, Standing, and Normativity
Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen(Author)
Oxford University Press Inc
Published on 19. December 2023
Book
Hardback
272 pages
978-0-19-754459-4 (ISBN)
Description
"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye" says the Bible. In other words: there is something problematic about one person blaming another, when the blamer's faults are even greater.
Many believe that even if one has done something blameworthy, one can dismiss blame when coming from a hypocritical blamer. Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen examines the nature and ethics of standingless, hypocritical blame. It argues that hypocrites lack standing to blame in virtue of their lack of commitment to the norms to which they appeal in their blame; that hypocritical blame is pro tanto morally wrong because it involves treating the blamee as an inferior; and that there are many other sources of lacking standing to blame than hypocrisy, e.g., complicity. Lippert-Rasmussen extrapolates these analyses to other moral responses, notably praising and forgiving. So far, philosophers interested in standing have focused narrowly on blaming, but many other moral responses require standing as well. Indeed, Lippert-Rasmussen argues that considerations about standing apply to illocutionary acts not involving appeals to moral norms, e.g., non-moral encouragements and epistemic blame. In closing, Lippert-Rasmussen uses insights related to the idea of standing as a basis for making a grand claim about how part of morality is interpersonal in a sense often ignored in discussions of mainstream first-order moral theories, and to elucidate the nature of the moral wrong involved in relying on negative statistical generalizations about certain groups of people.
Many believe that even if one has done something blameworthy, one can dismiss blame when coming from a hypocritical blamer. Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen examines the nature and ethics of standingless, hypocritical blame. It argues that hypocrites lack standing to blame in virtue of their lack of commitment to the norms to which they appeal in their blame; that hypocritical blame is pro tanto morally wrong because it involves treating the blamee as an inferior; and that there are many other sources of lacking standing to blame than hypocrisy, e.g., complicity. Lippert-Rasmussen extrapolates these analyses to other moral responses, notably praising and forgiving. So far, philosophers interested in standing have focused narrowly on blaming, but many other moral responses require standing as well. Indeed, Lippert-Rasmussen argues that considerations about standing apply to illocutionary acts not involving appeals to moral norms, e.g., non-moral encouragements and epistemic blame. In closing, Lippert-Rasmussen uses insights related to the idea of standing as a basis for making a grand claim about how part of morality is interpersonal in a sense often ignored in discussions of mainstream first-order moral theories, and to elucidate the nature of the moral wrong involved in relying on negative statistical generalizations about certain groups of people.
Reviews / Votes
Recommended. Upper-division undergraduates through faculty; general readers. * Choice * It is essential reading for philosophers interested in this topic. The book also helps us see how central questions of standing and authority are to moral practice and so should be read by anyone interested in second-personal issues in ethics more generally. * Justin Snedegar, Ethics * The Beam and The Mote: One Blame, Standing, and Normativity contains several new and insightful arguments. Its prose is clear and crisp, and it covers the debate over the standing to blame outstandingly, comprehensively assessing existing accounts of what standing is, how one can lose one's standing to blame, and why standingless blame is wrong. Particularly significant are the novel objections raised to Matt King's account that hypocritical blame is wrong because it involves violating a moral norm of attention (or attending to the "wrong" things). In sum, the monograph is a must-read for philosophers working on standing to hold responsible and a great introduction to the issue of standing for the curiousminded. * Marta Johansson Werkmaster, Springer *More details
Language
English
Place of publication
New York
United States
Target group
College/higher education
Product notice
sewn/stitched
Cloth over boards
Dimensions
Height: 229 mm
Width: 160 mm
Thickness: 41 mm
Weight
567 gr
ISBN-13
978-0-19-754459-4 (9780197544594)
Copyright in bibliographic data and cover images is held by Nielsen Book Services Limited or by the publishers or by their respective licensors: all rights reserved.
Schweitzer Classification
Other editions
Additional editions

E-Book
10/2023
OUP eBook
€53.99
Available for download

E-Book
10/2023
OUP eBook
€53.99
Available for download
Person
Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen is professor of political theory at University of Aarhus, Denmark and professor II in philosophy at the Arctic University of Norway-UiT. He has published widely on issues in ethics and political philosophy. Previous books include: Born Free and Equal (Oxford University Press, 2013), Relational Egalitarianism (Cambridge University Press, 2018), Making Sense of Affirmative Action (Oxford University Press, 2020). He was associate editor at Ethics (2008-2020) and Chair for the Society for Applied Philosophy 2011-2014. Presently, he is director of the Center for the Experimental-Philosophical Study of Discrimination, University of Aarhus.
Author
Professor of Political TheoryProfessor of Political Theory, University of Aarhus, Denmark
Content
Acknowledgements
Introduction
1. Topic and main aims
2. Structure
3. Significance
Chapter 1: Hypocritical blame
1. Introduction
2. When is blame hypocritical?
2.1 The blaming condition
2.2 The incoherence condition
2.3 The no-self-blame condition
2.4 The no-justification condition
2.5 Summary
3. Standing to blame and its denial
4. Other accounts of what it is to dismiss blame on grounds of the hypocrite's lack of standing
5. Conclusion
Chapter 2: Complications and defeaters of standing
1. Introduction
2. Private blame
3. Self-blame
4. Third-person blame
5. Degrees of blame and degrees of standing
6. Skepticism about standing to blame
7. Why does hypocrisy undermine standing to blame?
8. Conclusion
Chapter 3: What, if anything, makes hypocritical blame morally wrong?
1. Introduction
2. Lack of desert
3. Lack of commitment
4. Wrong attention
5. Transgression of moral authority
6. Failure of reciprocity
7. Moral community
8. Implying falsehoods
9. A clash with moral equality
10. Conclusion
Chapter 4: Other ways of not having standing to blame
1. Introduction
2. Tu quoque
3. Complicity
4. None of your business
5.
Introduction
1. Topic and main aims
2. Structure
3. Significance
Chapter 1: Hypocritical blame
1. Introduction
2. When is blame hypocritical?
2.1 The blaming condition
2.2 The incoherence condition
2.3 The no-self-blame condition
2.4 The no-justification condition
2.5 Summary
3. Standing to blame and its denial
4. Other accounts of what it is to dismiss blame on grounds of the hypocrite's lack of standing
5. Conclusion
Chapter 2: Complications and defeaters of standing
1. Introduction
2. Private blame
3. Self-blame
4. Third-person blame
5. Degrees of blame and degrees of standing
6. Skepticism about standing to blame
7. Why does hypocrisy undermine standing to blame?
8. Conclusion
Chapter 3: What, if anything, makes hypocritical blame morally wrong?
1. Introduction
2. Lack of desert
3. Lack of commitment
4. Wrong attention
5. Transgression of moral authority
6. Failure of reciprocity
7. Moral community
8. Implying falsehoods
9. A clash with moral equality
10. Conclusion
Chapter 4: Other ways of not having standing to blame
1. Introduction
2. Tu quoque
3. Complicity
4. None of your business
5.