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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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