Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Moral responsibility requires sourcehood in the agent, not merely the absence of compulsion or the presence of responsive reasoning.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Sourcehood itself requires explanation: agents' characters originate in genetics, development, and circumstance—sources beyond their control.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Practical accountability systems (legal, social) function effectively using forward-looking reactive attitudes, not metaphysical sourcehood.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The sourcehood requirement risks infinite regress: for agents to be sources, they must have caused their own character-forming capacities.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Mere absence of external compulsion leaves actions potentially traceable to randomness, luck, or prior causes beyond the agent's control.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Desert-based moral responsibility requires that agents author their choices from stable character and values they genuinely possess.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Responsive reasoning without sourcehood makes agents mere conduits for external influences, undermining the control accountability demands.
?
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.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42