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 Frankfurt-style cases show that an agent can act freely even when a counterfactual intervener would have ensured the same outcome, undermining the tight link between causal absence and freedom.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If an intervener could have prevented any deviation, the agent lacks genuine alternative possibilities necessary for freedom and responsibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The intervener's readiness to act suggests the agent's choice wasn't truly their own—it was overdetermined or constrained by external forces.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Frankfurt cases depend on intuitions about counterfactuals that are contested; they don't conclusively show free action without alternatives.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Freedom requires the agent's own reasoning and decision-making to be causally operative in producing action, not merely absent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Frankfurt cases preserve the agent's deliberative control and reflective endorsement of their choice regardless of the intervener's presence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Moral responsibility tracks what the agent actually did and why, not counterfactual alternatives that never occurred or influenced them.
      ?

      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.