Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Blamers must not jump to conclusions about wrongdoing
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Strawson's reactive attitudes (resentment, indignation) are constitutive of moral relationships, not derivative of prior epistemic certainty.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
Even without accepting Rosen's full skeptical conclusion, the opacity of mind makes judgments of blameworthiness difficult
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.