We argue that P. F. Strawson's hugely influential account of moral responsibility in ‘Freedom and Resentment’ (FR) is inextricably bound up with his barely known account of morality in ‘Social Morality and Individual Ideal’ (SMII). Reading FR through the lens of SMII has at least three far-reaching implications. First, the ethics–morality distinction in SMII gives content to Strawson's famous distinction between personal and moral reactive attitudes, which has often been thought to be a merely formal distinction. Second, the ethics–morality distinction sheds light on the scope of moral responsibility in FR, which is narrower than commentators think. Third, Strawson's discussion of morality shows that he was not insensitive to issues of power, as several critics have claimed. The link between morality and power helps to make clear that Strawson allows for criticism of our moral responsibility practices.

中文翻译：

---

斯特劳森对道德的阐述及其对《自由与怨恨》中心主题的影响

我们认为，PF·斯特劳森在《自由与怨恨》（FR）中对道德责任的极具影响力的论述与他在《社会道德与个人理想》（SMII）中鲜为人知的道德论述有着千丝万缕的联系。通过 SMII 的视角来解读 FR 至少具有三个深远的意义。首先，SMII中的伦理道德区分为斯特劳森关于个人反应态度和道德反应态度之间的著名区分提供了内容，这种区分常常被认为仅仅是形式上的区分。其次，伦理与道德的区别揭示了 FR 中道德责任的范围，它比评论家想象的要窄。第三，斯特劳森对道德的讨论表明，他并非像一些批评家所声称的那样对权力问题不敏感。