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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42