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's semi-compatibilism shows robust moral responsib... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The philosophical consensus that incompatibilists commit a simple mistake comparable to fatalism is no longer tenable

    Fischer's semi-compatibilism shows robust moral responsibility requires only reasons-responsiveness, a capacity fully preserved under determinism, making incompatibilist intuitions diagnostically misleading rather than philosophically decisive.

    ?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 practices (blame, praise, punishment) functionally require only that agents respond to reasons, which determinism preserves.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Incompatibilist intuitions about ultimate origination lack independent justification and may reflect cognitive biases about agency rather than metaphysical truth.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Fischer's account explains why we hold deterministic agents responsible while avoiding the incoherence of libertarian free will requirements.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Reasons-responsiveness may be necessary for responsibility but insufficient—agents also need control over their reasons-responsive mechanisms themselves.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Incompatibilist intuitions reflect deep commitments to desert and genuine alternative possibilities that cannot be dismissed as mere diagnostic error.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Semi-compatibilism avoids the hard problem by narrowing responsibility's scope rather than solving whether determinism permits moral agency.
      ?

      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

    Diagnostically misleading(as Fischer's claim about why incompatibilist thinking is unhelpful)
    Appearing to give us important information or intuition about a problem, but actually leading us in the wrong direction if we follow it.
    Fischer(philosopher reference)
    John Martin Fischer, an American philosopher known for his work on free will and moral responsibility, especially regarding how God's knowledge relates to human freedom.
    Semi-compatibilism(as the specific philosophical position being explained)
    Fischer's view that moral responsibility doesn't require free will in the traditional sense, but only requires the ability to respond to reasons.
    determinism(Discussion of classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, and general relativity)
    A property of physical theories concerning whether the laws governing a system fully fix future (and past) states given present conditions; admits of degrees ('fall only a bit short')
    incompatibilism(The passage questions whether survey respondents who endorse incompatibilist conclusions genuinely hold incompatibilist views.)
    The view that free will and moral responsibility are incompatible with determinism.
    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)
    philosophically decisive(the distinction between resource constraints and law-governed impossibility is treated as crucial to getting the philosophy right)
    An important distinction that meaningfully settles or clarifies a philosophical debate or argument.
    reasons-responsiveness(Epicurean philosophy of mind)
    The capacity to respond to reasons, which allows humans to control their own development, unlike other animals.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Free Will & Foreknowledge1 linked

    Related

    Fischer's account explains why we hold deterministic agents responsible while av...Incompatibilist intuitions about ultimate origination lack independent justifica...Incompatibilist intuitions reflect deep commitments to desert and genuine altern...Moral responsibility practices (blame, praise, punishment) functionally require ...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit
    +3 moreShow less
    Reasons-responsiveness may be necessary for responsibility but insufficient—agen...Semi-compatibilism avoids the hard problem by narrowing responsibility's scope r...The philosophical consensus that incompatibilists commit a simple mistake compar...