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
    Plum is not morally responsible in Case 4 (a normal human... — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Plum is not morally responsible in Case 4 (a normal human being in a causally deterministic universe).

    Moral 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.There is no relevant difference between Cases 1, 2, and 3 such that our judgments about Plum's responsibility should differ across these three cases.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The reason Plum is not responsible in Cases 1, 2, and 3 is that his behavior is causally determined by forces beyond his control.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Case 4 shares the defining feature of causal determinism with Cases 1, 2, and 3.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Moral responsibility requires only that an agent act from their own reasons-responsive capacities, not that those reasons be themselves uncaused.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.In Case 4, Plum retains the capacity to recognize and respond to moral reasons in a way that agents in Cases 1-3 do not, since their responsiveness is bypassed or externally overridden.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The analogical inference from Cases 1-3 to Case 4 therefore fails because it conflates causal determination with the circumvention of rational agency that grounds exemption from responsibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Strawson's reactive attitudes account holds that moral responsibility is constituted by participation in interpersonal practices of holding responsible, not by metaphysical conditions about causal origins.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Causal determinism, if true universally, gives us no principled reason to abandon reactive attitudes toward agents like Plum, since the same determinism governs all cases including those we regard as paradigmatically responsible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Pereboom's Case 4 therefore cannot inherit the exemption from Cases 1-3 without independent argument that determinism per se, rather than manipulation or compulsion, undermines the reactive attitude framework.
      ?

      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 Responsibility

    Related

    Case 4 shares the defining feature of causal determinism with Cases 1, 2, and 3.Causal determinism, if true universally, gives us no principled reason to abando...In Case 4, Plum retains the capacity to recognize and respond to moral reasons i...Moral responsibility requires only that an agent act from their own reasons-resp...
    +5 moreShow less
    Pereboom's Case 4 therefore cannot inherit the exemption from Cases 1-3 without ...Strawson's reactive attitudes account holds that moral responsibility is constit...The analogical inference from Cases 1-3 to Case 4 therefore fails because it con...The reason Plum is not responsible in Cases 1, 2, and 3 is that his behavior is ...There is no relevant difference between Cases 1, 2, and 3 such that our judgment...

    Similar

    No normal person in a causally deterministic universe is morally respo...90%Plum is not morally responsible in Case 4.88%In Case 4, Plum is just a normal human being in a causally determinist...87%Victim is not morally responsible for his actions83%

    Source

    AI-extracted2/3 agreementValid
    SEP: moral-responsibility
    Pereboom 2001: 116
    View source passageHide passage
    Pereboom claims that there is no relevant difference between Cases 1, 2, and 3 such that our judgments about Plum’s responsibility should be different in these three cases. Furthermore, the reason that Plum is not responsible in these cases seems to be that, in each case, his behavior is causally determined by forces beyond his control (Pereboom 2001: 116). But then we should conclude that Plum is not responsible in Case 4 (since causal determinism is the defining feature of that case). And since, in Case 4, Plum is just a normal human being in a causally deterministic universe, the conclusion...
    Extraction notes

    Validity: The premises accurately capture the passage's reasoning that causal determinism is the responsibility-undermining feature common to all four cases, and the passage explicitly draws the conclusion that Plum is not responsible in Case 4 based on this shared feature.

    Confidence: Clearly articulated manipulation argument by Pereboom.

    Details

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