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
    Not just any causally undetermined, agent-caused, or rand... — Carmelics
    Home/Afterlife & Death
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Not just any causally undetermined, agent-caused, or randomly generated choice qualifies as a free choice for which the agent is morally responsible.

    Afterlife & DeathEternal Conscious Torment
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • Moral freedom requires a minimal degree of rationality on the part of the choosing agent, including an ability to learn from experience, an ability to discern normal reasons for acting, and a capacity for moral improvement.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Frankfurt's hierarchical compatibilism shows moral responsibility requires only that an agent acts from desires they reflectively endorse, not rational capacity benchmarks.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Imposing rationality thresholds as preconditions for moral responsibility conflates epistemic competence with the volitional structure that actually grounds accountability.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.P.F. Strawson's reactive attitudes account grounds moral responsibility in interpersonal relationships of holding and being held to account, not in agent-internal rational capacities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A capacity-based filter for free choice smuggles in a performance standard that Strawson's framework explicitly rejects as irrelevant to the participant stance.
      ?

      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

    Afterlife & DeathEternal Conscious Torment

    Related

    A capacity-based filter for free choice smuggles in a performance standard that ...Frankfurt's hierarchical compatibilism shows moral responsibility requires only ...Imposing rationality thresholds as preconditions for moral responsibility confla...Moral freedom requires a minimal degree of rationality on the part of the choosi...
    +1 moreShow less
    P.F. Strawson's reactive attitudes account grounds moral responsibility in inter...

    Similar

    Not even an omnipotent being can causally determine a genuinely free c...83%PAP includes no requirement that a free choice be even minimally ratio...78%However causally undetermined some of their behaviors might be, lackin...77%A character that is libertarian freely chosen is the only kind of char...75%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: heaven-hell
    View source passageHide passage
    If that is true, then not just any causally undetermined choice, or just any agent caused choice, or just any randomly generated selection between alternatives will qualify as a free choice for which the choosing agent is morally responsible. Moral freedom also requires a minimal degree of rationality on the part of the choosing agent, including an ability to learn from experience, an ability to discern normal reasons for acting, and a capacity for moral improvement. With good reason, therefore, do we exclude lower animals, small children, the severely brain damaged, and perhaps even paranoid ...

    Details

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