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 are constitutively oriented toward second-personal relations, meaning their intentional content is communicative even absent actual expression.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Reactive attitudes can arise toward non-agents (storms, diseases) or toward absent parties we'll never communicate with, undermining constitutive second-personality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Intentional content can be communicative in form without being *constitutively* communicative—the attitude's identity may not depend on communicative orientation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Unexpressed reactive attitudes often lack the structural features of actual communication (comprehension, uptake, reciprocal recognition), suggesting communication is contingent, not constitutive.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Reactive attitudes like resentment logically presuppose understanding another's agency and responsible action, which are inherently relational concepts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Even unexpressed reactive attitudes involve implicit address to the other—we resent what someone *did*, treating them as an answerable agent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The normative force of reactive attitudes (demanding accountability) only makes sense within a framework oriented toward potential moral communication.
      ?

      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.