So, starting from the beginning, it is clear that there are two attitudes: the objective attitude and the reactive attitude. It is important to learn how each provides uniquely distinct methods for gauging appropriate reactions to conflict. The reactive attitude is essentially that which we would adopt under "normal" circumstances. That is, when the aggressor has the moral autonomy to decide what would constitute rational action. Alternatively, the objective attitude is adopted under circumstances where the aggressor has some characteristic(s) that inhibit their ability to act rationally.
For example, I would be angry if Isabella ate my chocolate chip cookie. Isabella, being the morally capable and rational individual that she is, understood the consequences of her action and, as such, I would make the reactive decision to not talk to her for an entire week. If my three-year-old cousin were to commit the same crime, however, my response would be different and I would forgive him after only five minutes. Notice that the emphasis in both scenarios is very different. In the first, I seem to solely focus on Isabella and her decision to betray me after trusting her alone with my chocolate chip cookie. In the second scenario, however, I place more emphasis on the action rather than the agent. This essentially serves as the gauge for how we come to preference a certain attitude in any given scenario of conflict, with the former constituting reactive attitude and the latter being more closely related to objective attitude.
Although Strawson comes to eventually strike down the idea that we should try to uncover whether or not determinism plays a role in our society, I can't help but wonder what accepting determinism would do to the relationship between objective and reactive attitudes. This may be a bit tangential, but I started to question whether our preconceived ideas behind the definitions of the two would be flipped. For example, I can predict that a child will act irrationally to a certain degree. Thus, a child could be expected to provoke an objective attitude on my behalf, ensuring that I can never really hold the child fully accountable for his/her actions. Now take a step back and apply this expectation to everyone. If determinism were accepted, we would live in a society where our interactions with one another are held to an objective attitude where we would not be able to hold any individual accountable for their actions. Would it no longer be acceptable/normal to adopt a reactive attitude toward agents when matters of conflict arise? Do we always fall back on the excuses of psychological health, age, God's plan, etc.?
Brian,
ReplyDeleteI think that your question – of what exactly would happen in terms of the prevalence of objective and reactive attitudes if we were to embrace determinism – is a good one to ask. You seem like you have arrived at the reasonable conclusion that “If determinism were accepted, we would live in a society where our interactions with one another are held to an objective attitude where we would not be able to hold any individual accountable for their actions.”
In this comment, I’ll try to offer what I think Strawson would say in response to your question and your conclusion. On page 81, Strawson arrives at effectively the same question as you have asked: “could, or should, the acceptance of the determinist thesis lead us always to look on everyone exclusively in this [objective] way?”
Strawson offers a two-part answer to this question. The first point that he makes is that the absence of substantive interpersonal relationships that would be the result of “sustained objectivity” simply is not “something of which human beings would be capable, even if some general truth were a theoretical ground for it” (81). Strawson just does not think that human beings are capable of remaining in objective-attitude mode at all times. I think that your chocolate chip cookie example can provide a solid illustration of Strawson's point: can you really imagine a world in which Isabella eats your chocolate chip cookie, and you have no option but to let her off the hook as easily as if she were your three year old cousin? Strawson is convinced that you (and everyone else) cannot sustain that level of objectivity.
Second, Strawson examines current cases in which we treat people objectively, instead of reactively, and concludes that “our doing so is not the consequence of [determinism]” (82). Rather, “our objective attitude” towards these individuals, Strawson writes, “is a consequence of our viewing the agent as incapacitated in some or all respects for ordinary interpersonal relationships” (82). I think that what Strawson is trying to say is that when we do treat people with the objective attitude, we do not do so because we have decided that we need to embrace determinism, but because we have decided that we need to abandon our normal, reactive-attitude mode of relating to others. You let your little cousin off easy when he eats your chocolate chip cookie not because it is right to treat his behavior as determined, but because it is wrong to hold him to the standard that you would hold a full-fledged person.