Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that It is reasonable to revise how one treats a person who has revealed callous, unreliable, or untrustworthy attitudes, even if that person could not help being that way.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Reactive attitudes like blame and relational adjustment are only fitting when the target possessed genuine alternative possibilities at the time of action (van Inwagen).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a person could not help having callous attitudes, holding relational adjustments against them treats a natural condition as a moral failing, violating the Kantian principle that ought implies can.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Strawson's own framework distinguishes objective from reactive stances precisely because determinism about character warrants the objective stance, not revised moral blame.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Justice requires that treatment tracking character rather than choice collapses the distinction between punishment and quarantine, undermining retributive legitimacy (Duff).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A person's revealed attitudes are morally relevant bases for adjustment only if they were formed under conditions of sufficient epistemic and volitional control, which the claim explicitly denies.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Blame and the relational adjustments that follow from it respond to what a person's attitudes actually are.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A person who has revealed callous, unreliable, or untrustworthy attitudes has shown that they are, for whatever reason, that kind of person.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.One cannot be expected to continue treating someone as though their revealed attitudes do not reflect who they are.
      ?

      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.