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 On a Strawsonian view, reactive attitudes constitutive of accountability are criterially linked to seeing agents as moral equals, making the fairness conditions Watson cites internal to attributability itself.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Reactive attitudes may track causal responsibility independently of fairness; we resent incompetent drivers without commitment to their equality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Watson's fairness conditions concern *when it's appropriate to hold someone accountable*, not *what makes attribution criterially true*.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.One can attribute moral agency while reasonably withholding reactive attitudes due to temporary incapacity, without incoherence in the attribution itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Strawson's reactive attitudes (resentment, gratitude) presuppose viewing others as responsible agents, not mere objects to be managed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Fairness requires equal moral standing: we cannot coherently resent someone while denying them the same accountability we claim for ourselves.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If fairness conditions are external to attributability, we could coherently attribute responsibility while unfairly denying reciprocal standing.
      ?

      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.