Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that If agents lack the sourcehood required for basic desert, punishment cannot be sufficiently justified by desert alone, even in principle.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Desert-based punishment can be justified by fair social reciprocity norms alone, independent of sourcehood claims about metaphysical free will.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The claim conflates 'necessary for desert' with 'necessary for justification'; other reasons (deterrence, incapacitation, restoration) may suffice.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Sourcehood itself may be compatible with naturalism without requiring libertarian free will, making the premise's scope too broad.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Moral responsibility requires that agents could have acted otherwise through their own free choices, not merely that they caused harm.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Desert-based justification is unique in requiring a deep metaphysical connection between agent and action; other justifications don't need this.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If sourcehood is absent, punishment becomes purely consequentialist tool-use, which fails to respect persons as moral agents deserving of reasons.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42