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 Moral desert requires the capacity for morally significant choice; beings incapable of rational agency cannot be proper objects of punitive condemnation.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Some non-rational beings (young children, animals) can be conditioned by consequences; this suggests responsibility doesn't require full rationality.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
We legitimately hold entities accountable for harms (restraining dangerous animals) without assuming rational agency or moral desert.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Moral desert might depend on action-causing capacity rather than rational agency specifically; non-rational agents can still cause harm intentionally.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Moral responsibility requires the ability to understand norms and regulate behavior accordingly; non-rational beings lack this capacity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Punitive condemnation expresses moral blame; blaming beings incapable of understanding blame is incoherent and disrespectful.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Desert-based punishment aims to give people what they merit for their choices; those without meaningful choice cannot merit punishment.
?
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.