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 requires that agents could have chosen otherwise, making outcome-conforming choice a criterion of rationality incoherent.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Moral responsibility may require only that choices flow from one's desires and reasoning, not metaphysical alternative possibilities.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Outcome-conforming rationality is coherent as a practical norm: agents should act as though choices matter regardless of determinism.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The ability to choose otherwise may be a useful fiction; responsibility functions socially even if metaphysical foundations are uncertain.
?
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 do otherwise; determinism eliminates this ability, making responsibility incoherent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Rationality cannot require outcomes we cannot control; outcome-conforming choice assumes control we lack under determinism.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Praising or blaming agents for inevitable choices is logically inconsistent with how we justify moral responsibility.
?
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.