The complete rejection of blame would amount to unconditional forgiveness... Assuming that one's relationship with a person has requirements that he or she can fall short of, the rejection of blame would either involve denying that the other person's actions can have meaning that impairs this relationship or denying that when this happens some adjustment in one's own attitudes is appropriate. The former involves an attitude of superiority toward the person in question (something like the attitude of a parent toward a very young child) and thus represents a failure to take that person seriously as a participant in the relationship. The latter involves adopting an attitude of inferiority that is demeaning to oneself.
Is this excessively stringent? What if one decides to "let it go" on instrumental grounds, say because the psychological or social costs of blame simply don't seem worth it? I assume Scanlon would be okay with this, since it need not involve either of the problematic denials mentioned above.
In class, Michael raised a really interesting comparison to Nagel's 'Concealment and Exposure' (see my past discussion), and especially the point that past conflicts may be tactfully ignored (i.e. not raised to common salience, even as both parties remain privately aware of it) for the sake of maintaining smooth social interactions in the present. But is this sort of superficial tact a reason not to genuinely blame, i.e. revise one's conception of the relationship, or simply not to publicly express one's blame?