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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    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