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 guidance control can be present where reasons-responsiveness is locally absent, responsiveness is not a necessary condition for guidance control.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
If reasons-responsiveness can be absent at the moment of action, it's unclear what 'guidance' means—the agent isn't being guided by reasons then.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Establishing that responsiveness is absent somewhere doesn't prove it's unnecessary; it may only show guidance control is fragile or partial.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The distinction between 'local' and 'global' responsiveness itself requires that responsiveness matters—undermining the main claim's scope.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Agents can exercise guidance control through established habits and dispositions without consciously responding to reasons in each instance.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Local gaps in reasons-responsiveness (e.g., during distraction) don't eliminate guidance control if the agent retained prior rational capacities.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Guidance control requires the ability to act otherwise via rational reflection, not constant moment-to-moment responsiveness to all 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.