The objective attitude gets a bad rap, but a closer look reveals that though it may be impossible to fully adopt, it’s beneficial for navigating our interpersonal relationships and more generally our lives.
Many philosophers, as Sommers describes, oppose the claim that we aren’t morally responsible for our actions as if it “must be overcome at all costs” (p.322).1 We might think determinism is true so we also think we can’t be morally responsible for our actions because all our actions are determined by the laws of nature and not ourselves.
A term coined by P.F. Strawson, the objective attitude toward human beings is the view that human beings are mere things, “creatures who cannot deserve praise or blame” (p.323). In other words, adopting the objective attitude means you don’t treat other people as morally responsible for their actions or character. Some philosophers think adopting the objective attitude is a consequence of believing we aren’t morally responsible for our actions; if we believe people aren’t morally responsible for their actions, we should act like people aren’t morally responsible for their actions.
Adopting the objective attitude basically comes down to how we should not praise or blame people for their actions. People aren’t morally responsible for their actions so it doesn’t make sense to praise or blame them for their actions. They were going to do those actions anyways.
We might think that the ability to choose otherwise is what it means to act freely, but some philosophers have contested this claim too. For instance, we cannot blame a thief for stealing because the thief was determined, whether by environmental factors or some past events, to steal so the thief couldn’t have chosen otherwise. The thief isn’t morally responsible for her actions (she didn’t freely choose to steal) so we can’t blame the thief.
Likewise, we can’t praise someone for saving a drowning child because she was determined to do so by a variety of factors. She’s not morally responsible for her actions so we can’t praise her. The actions of people are then just like other determined events of the world such as a tree falling over or a hurricane moving over the Atlantic. We can’t praise or blame any of them.
Philosophers (at least according to Sommers) give two reasons: (1) the implications of adopting the objective attitude are bleak and (2) it’s “psychologically impossible” to fully adopt the objective attitude (p.322).
Sommers goes over many arguments for the first reason, but I think the most telling one is from P.F. Strawson. Strawson argues that if we adopt the objective attitude we would need to treat human beings “as little more than targets of social engineering” (p.322). If you’ve read Brave New World, that is the type of conditioning Strawson thinks would occur. After all, if the environmental factors are what caused the thief to steal we could control as many of these factors as possible to create people who don’t steal. But as most dystopian novels seem to tell us, this is not the type of world we would want to live in. Who knows what else we might be conditioned into doing or believing?
For the second reason, we are all too tempted to think that we act freely. If someone asks me whether I could have chosen to have cereal instead of toast this morning, I would confidently say “Yes,” but this isn’t true if everything is determined. My belief (just like in this example) that I act freely is why I cannot fully adopt the objective attitude. I can’t even adopt it toward myself! I believe I’m morally responsible for the actions, but under the objective attitude, I can’t act like I’m morally responsible much less believe I’m morally responsible for my actions. It is absurdly difficult (at least for me) to think that I do not choose to pick up my pencil or go for a run. Instead, these are all determined from the start.
Sommers adds that what makes it difficult to adopt the objective attitude is that we are predisposed to emotions that assume we or others are morally responsible for their actions. We feel angry at someone because we believe she freely chose to hurt us or we might feel grateful to someone because we think she freely chose to help us.
To show that we should be more optimistic about adopting the objective attitude, Sommers asks us to consider Sally.
Sally is just like you and me except for the fact that she has adopted the objective attitude. Sommers also covers love, regret, pride, and indignation. To see what this looks like, Sommers considers different emotions Sally feels such as resentment, gratitude, and guilt. I’ll go over just two of these.
Imagine that Sally is walking back to her car after a day at work and discovers that a thief has stolen her car! Of course, after filing a report with the police. If this were me, I would immediately resent and blame the thief. I might say things like “Screw you!” or “Why did it have to be me!”
But Sally is different. Sally doesn’t blame the thief just like how she wouldn’t blame a tree if a tree had fallen on top of her car. Neither has a say in the matter. They were determined to do so.
Of course, Sally might still feel resentment toward the thief. She is only human after all, but she tries not to engage with the feeling. Sommers thinks that this is actually more beneficial for us in the long-run. If we try to move away from feeling resentment, we’ll be less overcome with bitterness in our lives.
Now imagine that Sally has come home after a day at work (she had to buy a new car) to discover she has lost her driver’s license. She might grumble about having to go to the DMV, but she goes to bed trying not to beat herself up for losing it. The next morning she hears a knock on the door and is greeted by a stranger who has driven all the way to her house to deliver her driver’s license.
If this were me, I would feel very grateful to the stranger, but you might think Sally cannot do the same. Under the objective attitude, Sally cannot praise anyone for her actions so Sally cannot feel grateful to this kind stranger. Sommers thinks that though Sally cannot praise the stranger Sally can still appreciate the stranger for her actions and character. This is the sort of gratitude Sally can feel and if Sally express this well the stranger might be encouraged to do more compassionate actions in the future.
This is a trend in Sommers’ argument. Although we may not be able to praise or blame someone under the objective attitude, we can act so that people are either encouraged or discouraged to act in some way.2 By doing so, we can be less consumed by our negative emotions and lead more compassionate lives. We don’t need to treat other people as targets of social engineering. In Sommers’ own words:
Nothing in the objective attitude prevents us from recognizing, appreciating, cherishing the rich and wonderful qualities of another person (p.327).
Sommers argues that while we won’t be able to adopt the objective attitude overnight we can commit to adopting it by adjusting our responses to the events around us to be like Sally. Sommers thinks Buddhists are pretty close to adopting the objective attitude. Then, over time, we might find that we have fully adopted the objective attitude.3
“The Objective Attitude,” The Philosophical Quarterly 57:228 (2007):pp.321-341 ↩
I’m actually being a little dishonest here because I make it seem like I can act freely but everyone else can’t. Sommers thinks that we can encourage or discourage ourselves in the same way to act differently, but I think this still runs into the same problem. Aren’t we determined to encourage or discourage ourselves too? ↩
Many thanks to DS for taking the time to give feedback on this post. ↩