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
    A person may be morally responsible for an action despite... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A person may be morally responsible for an action despite lacking any ability to do otherwise

    Free Will & ForeknowledgeMoral Responsibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Even if Frankfurt's original scenario does not succeed, more complicated Frankfurt-style stories demonstrate that moral responsibility does not require alternative possibilities
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.These revised stories show agents can be morally responsible without any ability to do otherwise
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.All Frankfurt-style cases rely on a counterfactual intervener whose presence itself subtly influences the actual causal sequence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the intervener's presence alters the actual sequence, the agent's actual-sequence freedom is compromised, restoring the need for alternatives.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore Frankfurt cases do not isolate moral responsibility from alternative possibilities but instead smuggle in causal interference that undermines the test.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's account grounds moral responsibility in the capacity to act from rational self-legislation, which conceptually requires the ability to have done otherwise.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Responsibility without alternative possibilities reduces agents to sophisticated mechanisms, stripping the reactive attitudes Strawson identifies as constitutive of moral practice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A practice of blame and praise that cannot distinguish determined mechanisms from genuine agents loses the normative foundation that makes moral responsibility coherent.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityFree Will & Foreknowledge

    Related

    A practice of blame and praise that cannot distinguish determined mechanisms fro...All Frankfurt-style cases rely on a counterfactual intervener whose presence its...Even if Frankfurt's original scenario does not succeed, more complicated Frankfu...If the intervener's presence alters the actual sequence, the agent's actual-sequ...
    +4 moreShow less
    Kant's account grounds moral responsibility in the capacity to act from rational...Responsibility without alternative possibilities reduces agents to sophisticated...Therefore Frankfurt cases do not isolate moral responsibility from alternative p...These revised stories show agents can be morally responsible without any ability...

    Similar

    We cannot be truly or ultimately morally responsible for our actions.87%Jones can be morally responsible for his action even though Black coul...86%Victim is not morally responsible for his actions86%Frankfurt's example does not clearly show that Jones is morally respon...84%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: incompatibilism-arguments
    View source passageHide passage
    Frankfurt’s argument has been enormously influential, though perhaps not in the way he intended. His thought experiment was a failure; while most compatibilists were convinced, most incompatibilists were not. (Compatibilists who were not convinced include Smith 1997, 2004; Campbell 2005; Fara 2008; Vihvelin 2000 and 2013.) These incompatibilists insisted, though not for the reason given above, that Black does not succeed in robbing Jones of all his freedom; there is something that remains up to
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit