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 Conflating PAP's incompleteness with PAP's inadequacy commits a category error: necessary conditions are not expected to specify sufficient ones.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
If PAP is incomplete regarding responsibility conditions, the incompleteness itself undermines its adequacy for normative purposes in ethics.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Necessary conditions by definition need not be sufficient; conflating these distinct logical categories misunderstands basic modal semantics.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
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.