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 Jones retains a morally relevant ability to do otherwise, preserving the principle of alternative possibilities

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Frankfurt's cases are specifically designed so that the alternative available to Jones involves no agency: Black intervenes before any deliberation occurs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An alternative that bypasses deliberative agency cannot ground moral responsibility, since responsibility requires that the agent's own reasoning make a difference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the retained 'ability' is not morally relevant because it is disconnected from the agent's reasons-responsive mechanism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Fischer and Ravizza argue that moral responsibility requires reasons-responsiveness, not mere alternative possibilities, rendering PAP dispensable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the mechanism actually producing Jones's action is reasons-responsive in the actual sequence, the counterfactual intervener is irrelevant to attributing responsibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Defending PAP by appeal to Jones's retained alternatives thus concedes too much to the incompatibilist framing while missing the actual basis of moral responsibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The charge that Jones's retained alternatives are insufficiently robust is incorrect
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The ability Jones retains is morally relevant even if not robust in the sense Frankfurt's defenders require
      ?

      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.