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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Compatibilist judgments are not distorted by emotional reactions

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • A meta-analysis of experimental philosophy studies found very little evidence that emotions play a critical role in generating compatibilist judgments
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Shaun Nichols and Joshua Knobe's 2007 research demonstrated that concrete emotional scenarios elicit incompatibilist intuitions, not compatibilist ones.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If emotions systematically drove moral responsibility judgments, we would expect emotional vignettes to boost compatibilist responses, but the evidence shows the opposite pattern.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Compatibilist judgments therefore track abstract reasoning about control and reasons-responsiveness, not affective arousal.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.John Martin Fischer's reasons-responsiveness framework grounds compatibilist judgments in cognitive assessments of an agent's capacity to respond to reasons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Cognitive assessments of reasons-responsiveness are structurally distinct from emotional reactions, which are triggered by harm salience and victim identification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Experimental results showing compatibilist judgments remain stable across high- and low-emotion conditions confirm they derive from this deliberative, reasons-based evaluation.
      ?

      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.