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 Desert claims require a robust notion of free will that is undermined by deterministic causal accounts of human behavior.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Compatibilists show that free will requires only acting on one's desires and reasoning without external coercion, compatible with determinism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Desert judgments track actual character and decision-making dispositions; determinism doesn't undermine the reality of these differences between people.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The intuition that 'could have done otherwise' requires libertarian free will confuses metaphysical possibility with the relevant moral sense of avoidability.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Desert (what people deserve) requires moral responsibility, which requires that agents could have acted otherwise in identical circumstances.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Determinism entails that given prior states and laws, only one future action is possible, eliminating genuine alternative possibilities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without alternative possibilities, holding someone responsible for outcomes they couldn't avoid is conceptually incoherent and unjust.
      ?

      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.