Dispositionism is something we cannot eliminate from social thought. It is the attributional style that makes it possible to hold people responsible for their actions. Insofar as responsibility is necessary for social cooperation and coordination, dispositionism is a good thing. But it must recognize reasonable and pragmatic limits. That’s where exclusively dispositionists fail. Walking an ambiguous and narrow line between dispositionally holding people responsible and situationally excusing them is psychologically difficult. People wish for “moral clarity” because it’s easy and reassuring to think that “moral clarity” exists and because it’s just plain easier to think dichotomously, judgmentally, and dogmatically.

But remember that civilization would not be possible without dispositional thinking. We’d never be able to cooperate and coordinate social behavior absent dispositional attributions. Another way of describing dispositionism is “theory of mind” or Dennet’s “intentional stance.” No one would suggest eliminating, nor could anyone practically forego, slipping into the intentional stance. It’s at the core of being a human being. So its a matter of tempering our dispositional dispositions!

Dispositionism and situationism are always in tension and always will be. I’d like to see this fact given more attention on this blog. Sometimes it’s referred to as “the internal situation.” That seems a little disingenuous and misleading. Please admit and confront that dispositionism is unavoidable and not necessarily a bad thing but simply a problematic legacy and component of social cognition.