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 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.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.