Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Not just any causally undetermined, agent-caused, or randomly generated choice qualifies as a free choice for which the agent is morally responsible.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42