Blaming: An Unavoidable Moral Obligation? - Essay Sample

Introduction

Blame refers to attributing responsibility for actions that someone took. However, blame can be quite a confusing experience. Consider the problems that we go through in our daily lives, such as murders, crimes, political issues, and many more. While considering such mayhems, it is unnecessary to renounce blame. The need to understand blame is more of a moral obligation as it touched a great deal of societal moral values. The belief about blame, or rather the misconceptions about blame, argue that there is nothing beneficial achieved from blame. As I understand it, the social notion of blame is that it is worthless and unnecessary. Such a case is mostly because of the ethical, social aspects of guilt that are inadequate to justify its usefulness.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The Value of Blame: Protecting Social Morals and Cultural Beliefs

Moody-Adams (292) states that the bond between culture and agency doesn't disregard the necessity of responsibility for the actions of an individual.

Human beings, therefore, remain liable for their actions. I believe that morality lies at the heart of culture. Blame is needed when valuing objects and items of moral value. We value our different cultures as they are vital in our existence. Luckily for us, the blame is significant in defending and protecting our social valuables that give rise to moral values (Franklin, 213). Therefore, blame is crucial in valuing social variables.

Blame can help either quire to be expressed or unexpressed. Similarly, to expressed blame, unexpressed blame is capable of defending and protecting moral values. Franklin (220), through blame, people can ungird their own beliefs about social, moral values when faced with challenges. Franklin (220) argues that just as expressed blame makes a statement to other people about an object, unexpressed blame makes a statement to an individual about the value of an object. However, this argument provides very shallow information about unexpected guilt. The writer fails to explain how sudden blame appeals to other people about an object. He fails to acknowledge how other people understand unexpected faults. Franklin (221) posits that the comments regarding unexpressed blame are more applicable when blame is self-directed.

Unexpressed Blame: The Importance of Internal Evaluation

As I determine the importance of blame, a logical question keeps crossing my mind. What would it be like if we stopped blaming people? Earlier, I identified the common notion about blame being unnecessary and unworthy. Is that true? We have different items we love, such as pets, cars, and trees. When I value my pet, I will be contented when it is healthy. Then I can even play with it. When I love trees, I will be overjoyed when the government passes laws to protect them. I will also take an extra step to volunteer and plant more trees. According to the value account for blame, I am indented to blame individuals who disvalue the items of moral value (Franklin, 216). Therefore, the fault is needed while responding to issues of devaluation.

Understanding blame requires us to know who is blameworthy. There are three features of blame identified (Franklin, 217). In the beginning, blame as a necessary way of valuing objects of moral value. Blame as a response to the free evaluation of the ethical items. Finally, there standards set to evaluate how such purposes are valued, who is worth being blamed, and the actions to be taken for evaluation. In a review of Culture, responsibility, and Affected Ignorance, Moody-Adam (292) challenges the historical views that allowed past agents to escape punishments and duties on the basis that they suffered from some culturally-induced inabilities that helped them avoid wrongdoing. Such people get away with a lot of unsolved severe crimes. The value account for blame helps to identify who is blameworthy and how they are responded to (Franklin, 217). In this case, the historical agents are culpable. That is because they are the agents who disvalue the ethical responsibilities set. By failing to blame such individuals, we fail to value the victims of their actions.

Franklin (211) views blaming attitudes as necessary. He states that, while blaming someone, including oneself, it is crucial to include resentment, anger, and guilt attitudes. Franklin (211) further says that such blaming attitudes are vital because they enable someone to perceive or judge themselves and other people when they have violated a standard of conduct. It is the blaming attitudes that will allow an individual to rebuke or censure themselves or others to the actions that they chose. Franklin's evaluation of the reactive attitude creates an understanding that such views as resentment and anger create dispositions of criticism and blame. They are hence creating the ability to criticize deeds. I, therefore, admit that the blaming reactions are critical.

Nussbaum (41) stated that the reactive attitudes of resentment, indignation, and guilt track the relation of another person's will towards us. I agree with the argument that blame attitudes are indispensable. Let's consider, 'why do we have the reactive attitudes within us?' Wallace (as cited in Franklin, 212) questions the existence of blaming attitudes as a distinctive response to immorality in life. Guilt serves to represent unexpressed blame. Franklin (221) states that "guilt defends the status of the object to and protects against further mistreatment on the object by ourselves." Anger, on the other hand, is a way of interpreting an event or situation that declares specific facts outstanding.

Blame and Devaluation: Responding to Ethical Challenges

In some instances, blaming attitudes are fundamental. Unexpressed blame, as discussed above, requires the application of the blaming attitudes. Regarding emotions, blame can entail a way through which some situations are rendered useless, such as repaying the wronged person. Furthermore, it would be pointless to endorse the features of blame while actively ignoring the essential characteristics. That is because resentment, indignation, and guilt are the emotions that characterize blame (Franklin, 221). Let's consider the question, "why do you require that one should go beyond sadness and grief to the dark attitude for blame?" (Franklin, 217). The writer believes that the solution surfaces after understanding the significance of free action while putting in mind the standards of value. So, an individual is inclined to apply his or her blaming attitudes when responding to issues of devaluation. Such attitudes are essential and worthy because free actions are ways to express devaluation.

Blame and Its Emotional Aspects: Unpacking the Reactive Attitudes

Blame has a negative side, which includes blaming attitudes (Franklin, 211). Such attitudes include resentment and indignation. Nussbaum (53) explains that indignation constitutes some thoughts of payback. The blaming reactions are, however, dispensable. The attitudes are mostly applicable only in the cases of unexpressed blame. Unexpressed blame lies primarily within an individual. Besides, when I consider the meanings of the term resentment and indignation, both incorporate the feeling of excess bitterness towards an action or event. Franklin evaluates the necessity of blaming attitudes without considering whether they should fade away. I intend to claim that resentment and indignation are effects of anger accumulated within a person. Such irritation can cause someone to acquire the need to outburst and express the passion with payback. Blame does not constitute of payback.

Conclusion

I have articulately evaluated the evaluated value of blame. Blame is a necessary evil in society. Through blame, we can protect our social benefits, such as moral. Blame also enables us to respond to issues of devaluation. Such actions will allow the society to restore value to the devalued aspects of their lives. The value account of blame states that blame is principal in valuation. The report posits that failure to condemn when necessary is the inability to value what deserves to be appreciated. Blaming attitudes are vital. Resentment, indignation, and anger form the basic characteristic features of blame. They are useful in establishing the grounds for criticism of deeds. Also, they are necessary for understanding unexpressed blame. Finally, our understanding of the blaming attitudes is vital in responding to devaluation and establishing guided value judgment. The attitudes should, however, require a thorough evaluation.

Work Cited

Moody-Adams, Michele M. "Culture, responsibility, and affected ignorance." Ethics 104.2 (1994): 291-309.

Nussbaum, Martha C. "Transitional anger." Journal of the American Philosophical Association 1.1 (2015): 41-56.

Franklin, Christopher Evan. "Valuing blame." Blame Its nature and norms (2013): 207-23.