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 responsibility, as P.F. Strawson argues in 'Freedom and Resentment', is constitutively linked to reactive attitudes like blame and resentment.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Reactive attitudes can be inappropriate or unjust even if genuinely felt. Circularity: we need independent grounds to evaluate them.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
People can deserve blame even when no one actually blames them. Responsibility seems to exist independent of anyone's attitudes.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The account conflates the *practice* of holding responsible with the *conditions* that make responsibility justified or appropriate.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Moral responsibility is a social practice, not a metaphysical fact. It exists only within our system of reactive attitudes.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Blame and resentment are the natural human responses that constitute holding someone responsible in everyday life.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Attempts to ground responsibility in abstract metaphysics (free will, desert) fail; the reactive attitude framework explains what we actually do.
?
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.