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 Mobs can be held collectively responsible even though they lack formal decision-making procedures and organized structure.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Moral responsibility requires that an agent could have done otherwise, which presupposes a deliberative structure through which alternatives were genuinely available.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Mobs are constituted by emergent crowd dynamics—contagion, deindividuation, and diffusion of responsibility—that systematically undermine individual deliberative capacity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Where the structural conditions for deliberation are absent, the attribution of collective responsibility collapses into either scapegoating individuals or punishing mere presence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.H.L.A. Hart's demand for 'capacity responsibility' requires that a bearer of responsibility possess the cognitive and volitional capacities to have acted differently.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Collective responsibility attributed to unstructured mobs cannot satisfy Hart's capacity condition because there is no agent—individual or collective—that possessed unified volitional control over the harmful outcome.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.'Implication' through facilitation or omission, absent a shared intentional structure, redistributes guilt by association rather than grounding genuine liability.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.At least some mob members contribute directly to harm.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Other mob members either facilitate these contributions or fail to prevent them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.When members contribute, facilitate, or fail to prevent harm, all mob members are 'implicated' in mob action.
      ?

      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.