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 By parallel reasoning, agents with deeply entrenched vicious dispositions act wrongly from similarly stable character necessity and remain fully blameworthy.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
If disposition is sufficiently entrenched through conditioning or circumstance beyond agent's control, the agent lacks the control required for blame.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Blame presumes realistic alternative possibilities. Deeply entrenched dispositions eliminate such possibilities, undermining blameworthiness.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The parallel claim proves too much: stable virtuous dispositions wouldn't justify praise if entrenchment eliminates control, so stable vice shouldn't justify blame.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Blame tracks moral agency. If vicious agents retain agency despite entrenchment, they retain blameworthiness regardless of causal stability.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Virtue and vice are character states we cultivate. Deeply entrenched vice reflects past choices, making present blame justified by prior responsibility.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Excusing stable vicious conduct would unfairly shield wrongdoers from accountability while holding righteous agents accountable for stable virtue.
?
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.