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
    Blamers must not jump to conclusions about wrongdoing — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Blamers must not jump to conclusions about wrongdoing

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • Even without accepting Rosen's full skeptical conclusion, the opacity of mind makes judgments of blameworthiness difficult
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Strawson's reactive attitudes (resentment, indignation) are constitutive of moral relationships, not derivative of prior epistemic certainty.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Requiring full epistemic warrant before blame would pathologically suspend the affective responses that ground moral community itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Angela Smith argues that blame tracks reasons-responsiveness, which can be publicly observable through action patterns without requiring access to opaque mental states.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If blameworthiness is grounded in objective reasons rather than subjective intentions, the opacity of mind is not a decisive barrier to warranted blame.
      ?

      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 ResponsibilitySkepticism

    Related

    Angela Smith argues that blame tracks reasons-responsiveness, which can be publi...Even without accepting Rosen's full skeptical conclusion, the opacity of mind ma...If blameworthiness is grounded in objective reasons rather than subjective inten...Requiring full epistemic warrant before blame would pathologically suspend the a...
    +1 moreShow less
    Strawson's reactive attitudes (resentment, indignation) are constitutive of mora...

    Similar

    Lying does not cause wrongness.76%One has a moral duty not to deceive others.76%Individuals can avoid blame by pleading ignorance when they did not kn...75%It must be clear when the action is to be taken or avoided.75%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: blame
    View source passageHide passage
    Rosen’s skepticism here relies on arguments presented earlier in his article for the conclusion that the epistemic requirements on moral responsibility are quite stringent (in order for ignorance to be culpable, it must eventually trace back to clear-eyed akratic action; see also Levy 2011), but for our purposes the important point is simply that “the opacity of mind”, as Rosen puts it, can make it hard to tell when someone is genuinely blameworthy, and thus can render unjustified the judgment o
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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