Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that If Frankfurt is correct, belief-desire causation is neither necessary nor sufficient for action, undermining the asymmetric sufficiency claim entirely.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Frankfurt's counterexamples rely on intuitions about agency that conflate action with mere bodily movement, not genuine action causation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Even hierarchical accounts ultimately ground action in causal relations between mental states; they refine rather than eliminate belief-desire causation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The asymmetric sufficiency claim concerns intentional action specifically, and Frankfurt addresses only marginal cases failing to undermine the core thesis.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Frankfurt's hierarchical model shows agents can act without first-order desires causing action if second-order volitions override them.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Cases of addiction demonstrate action despite conflicting desires, proving belief-desire causation insufficient for explaining voluntary action.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Neural pathways can trigger behavior without conscious belief-desire states, showing these mental states aren't necessary for action.
?
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.