Blame
act of censuring, holding responsible, making negative statements about an individual or group
Blame is the act of censuring, holding responsible, or making negative statements about an individual or group that their actions or inaction are socially or morally irresponsible, the opposite of praise. When someone is morally responsible for doing something wrong, their action is blameworthy. By contrast, when someone is morally responsible for doing something right, it may be said that their action is praiseworthy. There are other senses of praise and blame that are not ethically relevant. One may praise someone's good dress sense, and blame their own sense of style for their own dress sense.
Philosophy
Philosophers discuss the concept of blame as one of the reactive attitudes, a term coined by P. F. Strawson, which includes attitudes like blame, praise, gratitude, resentment, and forgiveness. In contrast to physical or intellectual concepts, reactive attitudes are formed from the point of view of an active participant regarding objects. This is to be distinguished from the objective standpoint.
Neurology
Blaming appears to relate to include brain activity in the temporoparietal junction (TPJ). The amygdala has been found to contribute when we blame others, but not when we respond to their positive actions.
“Blame” enters the record as act of censuring, holding responsible, making negative statements about an individual or group. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Blame, censuring and holding can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Blame” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Blame, censuring and holding provides the most credible route into that argument.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 16, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q621695.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Blame”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Blame primary sources, Blame archive and Blame research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Blame”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Blame” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.