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
    Bert acts freely and is morally responsible for his actions — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Bert acts freely and is morally responsible for his actions

    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.Bert satisfies the ordinary conditions used in real life to attribute free action
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bert satisfies all the conditions of the best compatibilist accounts on offer
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Compatibilist accounts capture only the surface conditions of agency, not the deeper metaphysical requirements for genuine authorship.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the causal history of Bert's deliberative states traces back to factors entirely outside his control, he is not the ultimate source of his actions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Moral responsibility requires sourcehood in the agent, not merely the absence of compulsion or the presence of responsive reasoning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Satisfying ordinary folk attributions of free action is insufficient, since folk intuitions systematically conflate freedom from coercion with genuine metaphysical freedom.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Experimental philosophy research (Nichols, Nahmias) reveals that folk intuitions about responsibility are sensitive to framing and are therefore unreliable as a normative standard.
      ?

      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

    Bert satisfies all the conditions of the best compatibilist accounts on offerBert satisfies the ordinary conditions used in real life to attribute free actio...Compatibilist accounts capture only the surface conditions of agency, not the de...Experimental philosophy research (Nichols, Nahmias) reveals that folk intuitions...
    +3 moreShow less
    If the causal history of Bert's deliberative states traces back to factors entir...Moral responsibility requires sourcehood in the agent, not merely the absence of...Satisfying ordinary folk attributions of free action is insufficient, since folk...

    Similar

    Bert acts unfreely and is not morally responsible for his actions.89%Victim is not morally responsible for his actions88%Therefore, Bert also acts unfreely and is not morally responsible for ...87%JoJo is not morally responsible for his behavior.87%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: incompatibilism-arguments
    View source passageHide passage
    After all, our grounds for saying that there is no relevant difference between the two is that the historical facts about Ernie’s creation (that he was created by a goddess, with the powers of a Laplacian predictor, with certain intentions, and so on) are not relevant to the question of whether Ernie acts freely or unfreely 30 years later. If they are not relevant, they don’t provide us with reasons for thinking that Ernie is unfree. By contrast, we do have reasons for thinking that Bert acts fr
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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