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
    People who give incompatibilist responses because they co... — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    People who give incompatibilist responses because they confuse determinism with bypassing do not hold a genuine commitment to incompatibilism.

    Free Will & ForeknowledgeMoral Responsibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Interpreting determinism as bypassing is a conceptual confusion, not a reflection of what determinism actually entails.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Responses based on a confused interpretation of determinism do not reflect a real philosophical commitment to incompatibilism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Nahmias and colleagues' 'bypassing' research shows folk incompatibilism tracks agent-causation concerns, not mere conceptual confusion about mechanism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If respondents consistently react to perceived absence of self-originated agency, their incompatibilism reflects a genuine commitment to agent-causal libertarianism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Pereboom and Clarke argue agent-causation intuitions constitute a philosophically serious incompatibilist tradition, not a cognitive error to be dismissed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Knobe and Nichols demonstrate that performance errors in folk reasoning do not automatically invalidate the underlying competence those responses imperfectly express.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A respondent who conflates determinism with bypassing may still possess a genuine incompatibilist intuition that determinism undermines the self-authorship required for moral responsibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityFree Will & Foreknowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    A respondent who conflates determinism with bypassing may still possess a genuin...If respondents consistently react to perceived absence of self-originated agency...Interpreting determinism as bypassing is a conceptual confusion, not a reflectio...Knobe and Nichols demonstrate that performance errors in folk reasoning do not a...
    +3 moreShow less
    Nahmias and colleagues' 'bypassing' research shows folk incompatibilism tracks a...Pereboom and Clarke argue agent-causation intuitions constitute a philosophicall...Responses based on a confused interpretation of determinism do not reflect a rea...

    Similar

    Responses based on a confused interpretation of determinism do not ref...83%Hard incompatibilism's skeptical conclusions do not depend on the trut...82%Hard incompatibilism is a more promising skeptical strategy than hard ...82%The incompatibilist position is correct: if determinism is true, agent...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: experimental-philosophy
    View source passageHide passage
    Of course, if people’s mental states have no impact on their behavior, that is an excellent reason to think that people aren’t morally responsible for their behaviors. So, if people interpret determinism to mean bypassing, it is perfectly rational for them to infer the lack of free will and responsibility from bypassing. However, it seems to be a flat-out confusion to interpret determinism as bypassing. Even if determinism is true, our behavior might be caused (not bypassed) by our mental states
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit