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
    No normal person in a causally deterministic universe is ... — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    No normal person in a causally deterministic universe is morally responsible.

    Moral Responsibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Plum is not morally responsible in Case 4.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.In Case 4, Plum is just a normal human being in a causally deterministic universe.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The conclusion drawn about Plum should extend to all other normal persons in causally deterministic universes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Moral responsibility requires only reasons-responsiveness: the capacity to recognize and respond to moral reasons, not sourcehood in an indeterministic sense.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Plum in Case 4, as a normal human in a deterministic universe, retains the capacity to recognize and respond to moral reasons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, Pereboom's intuition pump about Case 4 misidentifies the relevant condition for moral responsibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The analogical inference from Cases 1-3 to Case 4 illicitly smuggles in the intuitions generated by manipulation, which are not present in ordinary determinism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Frankfurt-style cases demonstrate that moral responsibility is compatible with the absence of alternative possibilities, severing the link between determinism and non-responsibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the manipulation cases trigger intuitions about non-responsibility due to manipulation rather than determinism per se, the analogical ladder to Case 4 breaks at the final rung.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Moral Responsibility

    Related

    Frankfurt-style cases demonstrate that moral responsibility is compatible with t...If the manipulation cases trigger intuitions about non-responsibility due to man...In Case 4, Plum is just a normal human being in a causally deterministic univers...Moral responsibility requires only reasons-responsiveness: the capacity to recog...
    +5 moreShow less
    Plum in Case 4, as a normal human in a deterministic universe, retains the capac...Plum is not morally responsible in Case 4.The analogical inference from Cases 1-3 to Case 4 illicitly smuggles in the intu...The conclusion drawn about Plum should extend to all other normal persons in cau...Therefore, Pereboom's intuition pump about Case 4 misidentifies the relevant con...

    Similar

    Plum is not morally responsible in Case 4 (a normal human being in a c...90%In Case 4, Plum is just a normal human being in a causally determinist...83%The conclusion drawn about Plum should extend to all other normal pers...80%No one can be responsible for their actions if determinism is true78%

    Source

    AI-extracted2/3 agreementValid
    SEP: moral-responsibility
    Pereboom 2001
    View source passageHide passage
    Pereboom claims that there is no relevant difference between Cases 1, 2, and 3 such that our judgments about Plum’s responsibility should be different in these three cases. Furthermore, the reason that Plum is not responsible in these cases seems to be that, in each case, his behavior is causally determined by forces beyond his control (Pereboom 2001: 116). But then we should conclude that Plum is not responsible in Case 4 (since causal determinism is the defining feature of that case). And since, in Case 4, Plum is just a normal human being in a causally deterministic universe, the conclusion...
    Extraction notes

    Validity: The three premises are explicitly stated in the source passage and together they logically entail the conclusion that no normal person in a causally deterministic universe is morally responsible.

    Confidence: Direct generalization step from Pereboom's argument, explicitly stated in the text.

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit