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 Rational wills that are negatively free must be autonomous.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Negative freedom (absence of external determination) is compatible with the will being governed by non-self-authored rational laws that are discovered, not legislated.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kant's move from 'not governed by natural law' to 'must be self-legislated' illicitly excludes a third option: governance by objective rational norms independent of any will's authorship.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Plato's Form of the Good and Frege's logical realism both demonstrate that rational constraint by mind-independent normative facts is coherent and does not collapse into heteronomy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The argument assumes that all causation requires universal laws connecting cause-types to effect-types, but agent-causation theorists like Roderick Chisholm hold that agents cause actions without subsuming them under any covering law.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If agent causation is coherent, a negatively free will can cause action through irreducibly particular causal agency, undermining Premise 2's universality requirement and severing the path to autonomy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The will is a kind of cause, since willing causes action.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Causation implies universal regularities: if x causes y, there is some universally valid law connecting Xs to Ys.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the will causes an action, then the willing is connected to the action by some universal law.
      ?

      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.