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
    Kant's 'negative freedom' presupposes an incompatibilist ... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The laws governing the will cannot be natural laws.

    Kant's 'negative freedom' presupposes an incompatibilist definition of freedom that is itself a contested philosophical assumption, not a neutral starting point.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Incompatibilism requires metaphysical libertarian freedom (agent causation), which lacks empirical evidence and faces determinism problems.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kant treats negative freedom as foundational without arguing against compatibilist accounts that ground freedom in rational self-governance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim 'freedom = absence of constraint' itself presupposes contentious metaphysics about causal determination and moral responsibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.All substantive freedom concepts—compatibilist or not—embed contestable assumptions; neutrality is impossible, not unique to Kant's view.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kant's negative freedom (acting without external coercion) is minimal enough to remain compatible with both determinism and indeterminism frameworks.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The criticism conflates Kant's practical conception of autonomy with metaphysical libertarianism; Kant need not endorse the latter.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Causation1 linkedFree Will & Foreknowledge1 linked

    Related

    All substantive freedom concepts—compatibilist or not—embed contestable assumpti...Incompatibilism requires metaphysical libertarian freedom (agent causation), whi...Kant treats negative freedom as foundational without arguing against compatibili...Kant's negative freedom (acting without external coercion) is minimal enough to ...
    +3 moreShow less
    The claim 'freedom = absence of constraint' itself presupposes contentious metap...The criticism conflates Kant's practical conception of autonomy with metaphysica...The laws governing the will cannot be natural laws.

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit