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 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.
Rationality and freedom exist on spectrums, not as binary conditions; most people possess these capacities to some degree and bear some responsibility.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Claiming someone lacks responsibility due to insufficient rationality requires proving their cognitive deficits are severe enough to eliminate agency entirely.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If people are exempt from responsibility for rejecting God, they may also escape responsibility for harmful conduct based on limited rationality.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Moral responsibility requires the capacities to understand reasons and act on them; those lacking freedom or rationality cannot meet this requirement.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
It would be unjust to hold someone accountable for a rejection they lacked the cognitive or volitional capacity to avoid or reconsider.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Religious belief formation depends on rational deliberation and free choice; coerced or irrational belief is neither genuine nor morally evaluable.
?
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.