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
    Conflating PAP's incompleteness with PAP's inadequacy com... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP) at most sets forth a necessary condition of acting freely in the libertarian sense, not a sufficient one.

    Conflating PAP's incompleteness with PAP's inadequacy commits a category error: necessary conditions are not expected to specify sufficient ones.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Necessary conditions by definition need not be sufficient; conflating these distinct logical categories misunderstands basic modal semantics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.PAP aims to specify when agents deserve moral responsibility, not to exhaust all conditions for free action—a narrower, achievable goal.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Criticizing PAP for incompleteness while treating it as inadequate commits a fallacy: incompleteness doesn't entail failure at its intended function.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If PAP is incomplete regarding responsibility conditions, the incompleteness itself undermines its adequacy for normative purposes in ethics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Distinguishing necessary from sufficient conditions doesn't resolve whether PAP actually captures what agents need for deserved moral responsibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim trades on ambiguity: 'category error' may mischaracterize legitimate concerns about PAP's explanatory scope and practical sufficiency.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Eternal Conscious Torment1 linkedAfterlife & Death1 linked

    Related

    Criticizing PAP for incompleteness while treating it as inadequate commits a fal...Distinguishing necessary from sufficient conditions doesn't resolve whether PAP ...If PAP is incomplete regarding responsibility conditions, the incompleteness its...Necessary conditions by definition need not be sufficient; conflating these dist...
    +3 moreShow less
    PAP aims to specify when agents deserve moral responsibility, not to exhaust all...The Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP) at most sets forth a necessary ...The claim trades on ambiguity: 'category error' may mischaracterize legitimate c...

    Details

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