Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    A capacity-based filter for free choice smuggles in a per... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Not just any causally undetermined, agent-caused, or randomly generated choice qualifies as a free choice for which the agent is morally responsible.

    A capacity-based filter for free choice smuggles in a performance standard that Strawson's framework explicitly rejects as irrelevant to the participant stance.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Strawson's participant stance grounds responsibility in reactive attitudes, not in agents' underlying capacities or competence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Capacity filters require assessing whether agents meet performance thresholds, which shifts focus from attitudes to external standards.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This shift reintroduces the objective, third-person evaluation that Strawson's framework explicitly displaces in favor of interpersonal engagement.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Strawson's reactive attitudes themselves presuppose capacity judgments—we withhold resentment from the young or cognitively impaired.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Distinguishing between reactive attitudes and capacity filters creates a false dichotomy; appropriately calibrated attitudes depend on capacities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Claiming capacity standards 'smuggle in' foreign elements mischaracterizes how baseline competence conditions enable the participant stance itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Eternal Conscious Torment1 linkedAfterlife & Death1 linked

    Related

    Capacity filters require assessing whether agents meet performance thresholds, w...Claiming capacity standards 'smuggle in' foreign elements mischaracterizes how b...Distinguishing between reactive attitudes and capacity filters creates a false d...Not just any causally undetermined, agent-caused, or randomly generated choice q...
    +3 moreShow less
    Strawson's participant stance grounds responsibility in reactive attitudes, not ...Strawson's reactive attitudes themselves presuppose capacity judgments—we withho...This shift reintroduces the objective, third-person evaluation that Strawson's f...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit