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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that P.F. Strawson's reactive attitudes framework grounds responsibility in reciprocal emotional engagement within the moral community.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Reciprocal emotional engagement cannot ground responsibility for isolated acts; a wrongdoer remains responsible even if community abandons reactive attitudes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Making responsibility depend on emotional responses creates implausible results: psychopaths escape responsibility if communities stop resenting them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This framework conflates responsibility's metaphysical basis with its social expression; emotions reflect responsibility rather than constitute it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Moral responsibility requires reciprocal engagement; isolated agents cannot meaningfully be held responsible without community recognition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Reactive attitudes (resentment, gratitude, love) are constitutive of moral life and better explain responsibility than abstract rules.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This framework avoids both harsh retributivism and eliminativism by grounding responsibility in natural human relationships.
      ?

      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