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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Both Y and Z may be morally responsible for X's crimes despite neither being identical with X

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42