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 one is ever morally responsible. — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    No one is ever 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.Moral responsibility requires free will.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Free will involves access to alternatives in a way that is not compatible with determinism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Dialetheism is true.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Moral responsibility requires only the capacity to respond to reasons, not access to alternative possibilities (Fischer & Ravizza, 1998).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Determinism is compatible with agents possessing robust reasons-responsiveness mechanisms that ground attributability.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, determinism does not eliminate moral responsibility, undermining P2 of the supporting argument.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.P3 invoking dialetheism is a non-sequitur: the truth of dialetheism is logically independent of claims about determinism and free will.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Introducing dialetheism without argument renders the supporting syllogism formally invalid, collapsing the argument's internal coherence.
      ?

      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

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedPhilosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    Determinism is compatible with agents possessing robust reasons-responsiveness m...Determinism is true.Free will involves access to alternatives in a way that is not compatible with d...Introducing dialetheism without argument renders the supporting syllogism formal...
    +4 moreShow less
    Moral responsibility requires free will.Moral responsibility requires only the capacity to respond to reasons, not acces...P3 invoking dialetheism is a non-sequitur: the truth of dialetheism is logically...Therefore, determinism does not eliminate moral responsibility, undermining P2 o...

    Similar

    Therefore, no one is ever truly or ultimately morally responsible for ...89%Human beings are morally accountable beings.86%We cannot be truly or ultimately morally responsible for our actions.85%No one is ever responsible for anything.85%

    Source

    AI-extracted3/3 agreementValid
    SEP: moral-responsibility
    hard determinist perspective
    View source passageHide passage
    If moral responsibility requires free will, and free will involves access to alternatives in a way that is not compatible with determinism, then it would follow from the truth of determinism that no one is ever morally responsible. The above reasoning, and the skeptical conclusion it reaches, is endorsed by the hard determinist perspective on free will and responsibility, which was defended historically by Spinoza and d’Holbach (among others) and, more recently, by Ted Honderich (2002). But given that determinism may well be false, contemporary skeptics about moral responsibility more often pu...
    Extraction notes

    The passage explicitly presents this as a valid chain of reasoning ("If moral responsibility requires free will, and free will involves access to alternatives in a way that is not compatible with determinism, then it would follow from the truth of determinism that no one is ever morally responsible"), and the three premises logically entail the conclusion through a straightforward chain of modus ponens.

    Validity:

    Confidence: This is explicitly presented as the hard determinist argument.

    Details

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