Strawson's theory of "reactive attitudes".
"I think for a long time politics established itself in very violent ways – rigid, reactive attitudes with authoritarian structures".
Yet it is far from clear that people are always justified in having reactive attitudes.
He argued that holding an agent morally responsible for an action is nothing more than having such feelings, or "reactive attitudes," toward him.
Given the enormous influence that everyday factual information has over what reactive attitudes people have and whether they even have them, it seems unwise to treat them as accurate barometers of moral responsibility.
Moreover, because people cannot help but feel reactive attitudes, no matter how much they may try not to, they are justified in having them, whatever the truth or falsity of determinism.
Hence, Strawson emphasizes the morally reactive attitudes.
Wallace gives structure to the morally reactive attitudes by distinguishing them from other attitudes and emotions.
It involves a suspension or withdrawal of certain morally reactive attitudes, attitudes involving emotional responses.
It is also possible to appeal to reactive attitudes in arguing against external reasons.
In this way, the reactive attitudes are expressed in (and perhaps constitutive of) treating other agents as morally responsible.
