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 the above is true, it is not that someone who is not [both free and rational] should be held responsible for rejecting God
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
People can be held responsible for negligence in developing rationality or for willfully avoiding evidence about God.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Responsibility may attach to emotional resistance or motivated reasoning, not solely to abstract rational capacity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The claim exempts too many people; most possess some degree of freedom and rationality yet remain accountable agents.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Moral responsibility requires agents possess the cognitive capacities to understand what they're rejecting and why.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Freedom and rationality are necessary conditions for meaningful choice between accepting or rejecting any worldview.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Holding those incapable of rational deliberation responsible violates basic principles of fairness in moral judgment.
?
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.