I argue that influential recent discussions have whitewashed blame, characterizing it in ways that deemphasize or ignore its morally problematic features. I distinguish “definitional,” “creeping,” and “emphasis” whitewash, and argue that they play a central role in overall endorsements of blame by T.M. Scanlon, George Sher, and Miranda Fricker. In particular, these endorsements treat blame as appropriate by definition (Scanlon), or as little more than a wish (Sher), and infer from blame's having one useful function that it is a good practice overall (Fricker). I use an analogy with revenge to illustrate the mechanisms of whitewashing, including broadening a concept to include available alternatives to it and inference from one feature of a practice to an overall conclusion about that practice. Several features of blame make it particularly prone to whitewashing, including blamers' personal or emotional stake in blaming and widespread disagreement about the nature of blame. I argue that a non-whitewashing treatment of blame must pay closer attention both to blame's harms, and to comparisons between blame and alternative, non-blaming reactions.

中文翻译：

---

粉饰指责

我认为，最近有影响力的讨论粉饰了指责，以淡化或忽视其道德问题特征的方式来描述它。我区分了“明确的”、“蠕动的”和“强调的”粉饰，并认为它们在 TM Scanlon、George Sher 和 Miranda Fricker 的总体支持中发挥着核心作用。特别是，这些认可根据定义将责备视为适当的（斯坎伦），或者只是一种愿望（谢尔），并从责备的一个有用功能推断出它总体上是一种良好的做法（弗里克）。我用复仇的类比来说明洗白的机制，包括扩大概念以包括可用的替代方案，以及从实践的一个特征推断出有关该实践的总体结论。指责的几个特征使其特别容易被粉饰，包括指责者在指责中的个人或情感利害关系以及对指责性质的广泛分歧。我认为，对指责的非粉饰处理必须更加密切地关注指责的危害，以及指责与其他非指责反应之间的比较。