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
    Even without accepting Rosen's full skeptical conclusion,... — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Blamers must not jump to conclusions about wrongdoing

    Even without accepting Rosen's full skeptical conclusion, the opacity of mind makes judgments of blameworthiness difficult

    Moral ResponsibilitySkepticism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilitySkepticism

    Related

    Blamers must not jump to conclusions about wrongdoing

    Similar

    The opacity of mind can make it hard to tell when someone is genuinely...88%

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Moral Responsibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    The opacity of mind can render unjustified the judgment of wrongdoing ...85%
    There is no good reason to be skeptical about the intuitive judgments ...76%
    Sher's theory compromises psychological realism by stripping away blam...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: blame
    View source passageHide passage
    Rosen’s skepticism here relies on arguments presented earlier in his article for the conclusion that the epistemic requirements on moral responsibility are quite stringent (in order for ignorance to be culpable, it must eventually trace back to clear-eyed akratic action; see also Levy 2011), but for our purposes the important point is simply that “the opacity of mind”, as Rosen puts it, can make it hard to tell when someone is genuinely blameworthy, and thus can render unjustified the judgment o

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective