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
    Fischer and Ravizza's reasons-responsiveness account demo... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The idea that we are responsible is to be understood by the practice of reactive attitudes, not the other way around.

    Fischer and Ravizza's reasons-responsiveness account demonstrates that moral responsibility is grounded in an agent's capacity to recognize and respond to moral reasons, a capacity that is conceptually prior to any social practice.

    ?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.Moral responsibility requires explaining why agents deserve praise or blame; only internal capacities like reasons-responsiveness ground desert independently.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Animals and isolated individuals can recognize dangers and respond accordingly, suggesting reasons-responsiveness exists prior to social institutions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Social practices presuppose agents capable of understanding norms; this capacity cannot itself be constituted by the practices it makes possible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.What counts as a 'moral reason' is historically contingent and culturally variable, suggesting it depends on social meaning-making, not prior capacity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Fischer and Ravizza's own account requires agents to recognize reasons as *moral*, implying social frameworks that define what is morally salient.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Individual reasons-responsiveness cannot explain why we hold agents responsible only within communities that share accountability practices.
      ?

      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.

    Key Terms

    Conceptually prior(as used in epistemology)
    Something that is logically or mentally more basic or fundamental—you need to understand it before you can understand something else.
    Fischer and Ravizza(as the originators of the reasons-responsiveness account)
    Two contemporary philosophers (John Martin Fischer and Mark Ravizza) who developed an influential theory about what makes people morally responsible for their actions.
    Reasons-responsiveness account(as the main philosophical framework being discussed)
    A theory that says you're morally responsible for an action if you're able to understand moral reasons (like 'stealing hurts people') and can adjust your behavior based on those reasons.
    Social practice(where habitus operates in real life)
    The actual day-to-day actions and behaviors that people do within society, as opposed to theory or ideas.
    agent(Economics terminology applied to medical ethics)
    The party in a principal-agent relationship who is instructed to produce the good or service on the principal's behalf — in the medical context, the doctor
    capacity(Theory of capacity)
    A subject's ability to make decisions, assessed by paradigm examples and the presence of necessary (and possibly sufficient) abilities.
    grounded in(whether distinctness or identity is explained by intrinsic features)
    To be explained by or to have its reason or basis in something else—like how a tree being wet is grounded in (explained by) recent rain.
    moral responsibility(The author argues for a pluralistic understanding rather than a Kantian-exclusive one)
    A normative concept whose scope is contested; the passage implies it encompasses at least Kantian notions (centered on individual rational agency) and other notions (potentially sociological, collective, or non-individualist in character)

    Connections

    1 topic

    Moral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    Animals and isolated individuals can recognize dangers and respond accordingly, ...Fischer and Ravizza's own account requires agents to recognize reasons as *moral...Individual reasons-responsiveness cannot explain why we hold agents responsible ...Moral responsibility requires explaining why agents deserve praise or blame; onl...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit
    +3 moreShow less
    Social practices presuppose agents capable of understanding norms; this capacity...The idea that we are responsible is to be understood by the practice of reactive...What counts as a 'moral reason' is historically contingent and culturally variab...