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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Non-moral agents should not be attributed moral responsibility.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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