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
    Non-moral agents should not be attributed moral responsib... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Non-moral agents should not be attributed moral responsibility.

    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.A pattern of regular receptivity to reasons must include receptivity to a range of moral considerations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Non-moral agents lack receptivity to moral considerations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Moral responsibility can be grounded in causal efficacy and reasons-responsiveness without requiring the agent to recognize moral considerations as moral.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A psychopath who responds to prudential reasons but not moral ones may still satisfy Fischer-Ravizza's mechanism-ownership criteria, warranting at least partial responsibility attribution.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Restricting responsibility to moral agents conflates the conditions for being a responsible agent with the conditions for acting morally well.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Strawson's reactive attitudes account grounds responsibility in susceptibility to practices of holding responsible, not in prior moral receptivity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Non-moral agents such as young children or certain cognitively atypical persons are targets of modified reactive attitudes like indignation, suggesting responsibility attribution occurs on a spectrum.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Fischer and Ravizza's criterion smuggles in a normative threshold that Strawson's original framework deliberately left open to interpersonal negotiation.
      ?

      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

    A pattern of regular receptivity to reasons must include receptivity to a range ...A psychopath who responds to prudential reasons but not moral ones may still sat...Fischer and Ravizza's criterion smuggles in a normative threshold that Strawson'...Moral responsibility can be grounded in causal efficacy and reasons-responsivene...
    +4 moreShow less
    Non-moral agents lack receptivity to moral considerations.Non-moral agents such as young children or certain cognitively atypical persons ...Restricting responsibility to moral agents conflates the conditions for being a ...Strawson's reactive attitudes account grounds responsibility in susceptibility t...

    Similar

    Intuitively, agents who have been manipulated in this way are not mora...88%Such agents lack guidance control and are therefore not morally respon...88%Groups can be held morally responsible for harm even if they are not g...87%Non-moral agents lack receptivity to moral considerations.87%

    Source

    AI-extracted2/3 agreementValid
    SEP: moral-responsibility
    Fischer and Ravizza (1998)
    View source passageHide passage
    Fischer and Ravizza settle on moderate reasons responsiveness as the sort that is most germane to guidance control (1998: 69–85). A psychological mechanism that is moderately responsive to reasons exhibits regularity with respect to its receptivity to reasons: that is, it exhibits “an understandable pattern of (actual and hypothetical) reasons-receptivity” (Fischer & Ravizza 1998: 71; emphasis in original). Such a pattern will indicate that an agent understands “how reasons fit together” and that, for example, “acceptance of one reason as sufficient implies that a stronger reason must also...
    Extraction notes

    The passage states that including receptivity to moral considerations "will rule out attributing moral responsibility to non-moral agents," and the two premises correctly reconstruct the reasoning behind this claim, with premise 2 being clearly entailed by the concept of a "non-moral agent."

    Validity:

    Confidence: This is explicitly stated as a consequence of the moral-considerations condition on reasons-receptivity, though Todd and Tognazzini's criticism is noted.

    Details

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