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 P.F. Strawson's reactive attitudes account grounds responsibility fully in the quality of will expressed in actions, without requiring separate accountability norms.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Reactive attitudes are culturally variable and psychologically contingent; they cannot reliably ground moral responsibility across contexts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Quality of will alone fails to distinguish culpability: identical bad will warrants different responses based on harm, capacity, and circumstances.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Some agents deserve accountability despite poor will (negligence) or deserve leniency despite good will (reasonable mistakes), requiring independent normative standards.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Reactive attitudes (resentment, gratitude, love) naturally track ill-will or good-will in actions, making them the fundamental basis of responsibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Accountability norms are derivative constructs that merely formalize what reactive attitudes already accomplish interpersonally.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This account avoids the circularity problem: norms requiring norms, by grounding responsibility in natural human responses.
      ?

      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.