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 moral desert tracks the quality of the will rather than outcomes, a purely conduct-based law systematically mismeasures blameworthiness.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Outcomes are often the best available evidence of an agent's actual will, since intentions are subjective and easily falsified.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Legal systems must prioritize public protection and deterrence over philosophical theories of desert, and conduct alone fails both.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Perfect will-tracking is epistemically impossible; conduct-based law offers objectivity that intention-based law cannot reliably achieve.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Moral responsibility fundamentally depends on the agent's intentions and volition, not merely physical consequences they may not control.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Two agents with identical harmful outcomes but vastly different mental states (recklessness vs. accident) deserve different moral blame.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Conduct-based law punishes the same way regardless of whether harm resulted from moral luck, making punishment systematically unjust.
?
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.