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 Marilyn McCord Adams argues in 'Horrendous Evils' that choices made under conditions of profound cognitive impairment cannot ground eternal consequences.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Many cognitive impairments are matters of degree, not kind; drawing a clear threshold for responsibility becomes philosophically arbitrary.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Moral agents may bear responsibility for prior choices that resulted in their impairment, making current impairment-based excuses questionable.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Eternal consequences might attach to persistent character dispositions rather than discrete choices, bypassing the impairment objection entirely.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Moral responsibility requires adequate cognitive capacity to understand consequences and deliberate rationally about one's choices.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Profound cognitive impairment systematically undermines the autonomy necessary for choices to reflect a person's true moral character.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Eternal punishment for cognitively impaired choices violates proportionality principles central to just accountability systems.
?
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.