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
    Both Y and Z may be morally responsible for X's crimes de... — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Both Y and Z may be morally responsible for X's crimes despite neither being identical with X

    Moral ResponsibilityPersonal Identity
    ?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.Ownership of actions consists in psychological continuity with the original agent
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Ownership of actions is the necessary condition for moral responsibility
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Both Y and Z are fully psychologically continuous with X
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Moral responsibility requires a unique subject of accountability, since holding two agents responsible for one act creates incoherent punishment obligations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If both Y and Z are fully responsible for X's crime, justice cannot determine proportionate punishment without double-counting a single wrong.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, branching psychological continuity dissolves rather than distributes moral responsibility, leaving no coherent responsible agent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Derek Parfit's own analysis in Reasons and Persons concedes that fission cases reduce the importance of identity, weakening rather than preserving responsibility attributions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If personal identity is not what matters for survival, then the psychological continuity grounding responsibility is severed from the biographical self who actually performed X's crimes.
      ?

      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 ResponsibilityPersonal Identity

    Related

    Both Y and Z are fully psychologically continuous with XDerek Parfit's own analysis in Reasons and Persons concedes that fission cases r...If both Y and Z are fully responsible for X's crime, justice cannot determine pr...If personal identity is not what matters for survival, then the psychological co...
    +5 moreShow less
    Moral responsibility requires a unique subject of accountability, since holding ...Ownership of actions consists in psychological continuity with the original agen...Ownership of actions is the necessary condition for moral responsibilityPsychological continuity need not obtain uniquely to ground moral responsibilityTherefore, branching psychological continuity dissolves rather than distributes ...

    Similar

    Frankfurt's example does not clearly show that Jones is morally respon...82%Victim is not morally responsible for his actions81%Groups can be held morally responsible for harm even if they are not g...80%JoJo is not morally responsible for his behavior.80%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: identity-ethics
    View source passageHide passage
    A second reply is reductionist, and it simply denies the slogan. In other words, identity is not necessary for moral responsibility. Instead (the reductionist could say), what matters is psychological continuity (or connectedness), regardless of whether it obtains uniquely. This allows the reductionist to handle the fission case in the following way: while neither Y nor Z is identical with X, both are fully psychologically continuous with him, and insofar as ownership of actions consists in
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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