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
    Hard incompatibilism is a more promising skeptical strate... — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Hard incompatibilism is a more promising skeptical strategy than hard determinism.

    Moral Responsibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Determinism may well be false.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hard incompatibilism argues that the kind of free will required for desert-based moral responsibility is incompatible with both the truth and the falsity of determinism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Hard incompatibilism's skeptical conclusions do not depend on the truth of determinism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.If determinism is true, compatibilist free will suffices for moral responsibility, making hard incompatibilism unnecessary rather than more promising.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hard incompatibilism's advantage over hard determinism presupposes that incompatibilism is correct, but compatibilists like Frankfurt and Dennett have given strong reasons to reject that presupposition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A skeptical strategy that depends on winning the compatibilism debate is not more strategically secure than one that depends on winning the determinism debate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hard incompatibilism must defeat both compatibilism and libertarianism simultaneously, making it dialectically more burdensome, not less, than hard determinism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Pereboom's manipulation arguments and luck objections to libertarianism have well-developed responses from Clarke and Mele, leaving the anti-libertarian flank genuinely contested.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Moral Responsibility

    Related

    A skeptical strategy that depends on winning the compatibilism debate is not mor...Determinism may well be false.Hard incompatibilism argues that the kind of free will required for desert-based...Hard incompatibilism must defeat both compatibilism and libertarianism simultane...
    +4 moreShow less
    Hard incompatibilism's advantage over hard determinism presupposes that incompat...Hard incompatibilism's skeptical conclusions do not depend on the truth of deter...If determinism is true, compatibilist free will suffices for moral responsibilit...Pereboom's manipulation arguments and luck objections to libertarianism have wel...

    Similar

    Hard incompatibilism's skeptical conclusions do not depend on the trut...89%Responses based on a confused interpretation of determinism do not ref...84%People who give incompatibilist responses because they confuse determi...82%Hard incompatibilism argues that the kind of free will required for de...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted3/3 agreementValid
    SEP: moral-responsibility
    contemporary skeptics about moral responsibility
    View source passageHide passage
    If moral responsibility requires free will, and free will involves access to alternatives in a way that is not compatible with determinism, then it would follow from the truth of determinism that no one is ever morally responsible. The above reasoning, and the skeptical conclusion it reaches, is endorsed by the hard determinist perspective on free will and responsibility, which was defended historically by Spinoza and d’Holbach (among others) and, more recently, by Ted Honderich (2002). But given that determinism may well be false, contemporary skeptics about moral responsibility more often pu...
    Extraction notes

    Validity: The passage explicitly states that "given that determinism may well be false, contemporary skeptics about moral responsibility more often pursue a hard incompatibilist line of argument," which directly conveys that hard incompatibilism is a more promising skeptical strategy precisely because its conclusions don't depend on the truth of determinism, and the three premises together support this conclusion.

    Confidence: The text clearly presents this as the reason contemporary skeptics prefer hard incompatibilism over hard determinism.

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit