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 Free moral choice must be conceived as taking place in a supersensible or noumenal realm, not in the phenomenal realm governed by deterministic causality.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Compatibilist accounts (Hume, Frankfurt) show that freedom requires only acting from one's own desires and reasons, not exemption from causality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A choice caused by an agent's own deliberative character is not thereby unfree, since the relevant distinction is between internal rational causation and external compulsion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Positing a noumenal realm to ground freedom generates an explanatory regress: if noumenal acts are themselves uncaused, they become arbitrary; if caused, they replicate the original problem.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's own critical philosophy bars any positive theoretical knowledge of the noumenal realm, making noumenal freedom a regulative postulate rather than a substantive metaphysical account.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A concept of moral freedom that is in principle empirically inaccessible cannot do the normative work required by practical ethics, as P.F. Strawson's reactive-attitudes framework demonstrates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Strawson shows that moral responsibility is grounded in interpersonal practices of holding agents accountable within the phenomenal social world, not in postulated supersensible agency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Every event in the phenomenal realm is fully determined by chains of causality extending far back beyond any particular choice of any particular individual.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A choice that is fully determined by prior causes cannot be genuinely free.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Moral choice, to be free, must therefore occur outside the deterministic phenomenal order.
      ?

      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.