This paper investigates some unexplored ambivalences of Strawson's distinction between the participant stance marked by reactive attitudes and the objective stance in which such attitudes are deemed inappropriate. First, a distinction between recipient-oriented and agent-oriented reasons for taking the objective stance is introduced. These are both practical reasons rooted in the agent's position. The former category of reasons refers to the recipient's capacities for moral agency, and the latter to the agent's interests and concerns. Second, it is shown that taking the objective stance for recipient-oriented reasons (a) is a moral move, which alters one's normative relation to others; and (b) it may have severe disempowering effects on others. Third, departing from current debates, this investigation refocuses on cases in which the objective stance is grounded on self-defensive or adversarial reasons. The examination of such cases shows that the objective/participant divide stands behind and organizes the complex dynamics through which moral membership is negotiated. Once agent-oriented reasons are brought into focus, it appears that the divide is contestable and renegotiable: the boundaries of the relevant community can be altered by claiming and reclaiming responsibility. Correspondingly, reactive attitudes should be acknowledged as means and drives of the struggle for moral and political recognition.

中文翻译：

---

客观立场与边界问题

本文调查了斯特劳森区分以反应态度为标志的参与者立场与认为这种态度不合适的客观立场之间的一些未探索的矛盾。首先，介绍了采取客观立场的面向接受者和面向代理人的理由之间的区别。这些都是植根于代理人职位的实际原因。前一类原因是指接受者的道德代理能力，后一类是指代理的利益和关注点。其次，表明出于接受者导向的原因采取客观立场（a）是一种道德举动，它改变了一个人与他人的规范关系；(b) 它可能会严重削弱他人的权力。第三，从目前的争论出发，这项调查重新侧重于客观立场基于自卫或敌对原因的案件。对此类案例的研究表明，客观/参与者的分歧落后于并组织了通过其协商道德成员资格的复杂动态。一旦以代理为导向的原因成为焦点，分歧似乎是可以争论和重新协商的：相关社区的边界可以改变通过主张和收回责任。相应地，应承认反应性态度是争取道德和政治承认斗争的手段和动力。