Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Real Self views have some explanatory merit regarding moral responsibility.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
The 'real self' is not a stable, unified entity but a contested construct varying across time, context, and reflective equilibrium.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If there is no determinate real self, then grounding responsibility in alignment with it yields indeterminate or arbitrary attributions of blame.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Frankfurt-style cases show that an agent can be morally responsible even when acting against their higher-order volitions or valuational system.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If responsibility can obtain without real-self alignment, then real-self alignment is neither necessary nor explanatorily fundamental to responsibility.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Real Self views explain why people acting under the influence of hypnosis or compulsive desires are often not responsible.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Agents under hypnosis or compulsive desires are typically unable to govern their behavior on the basis of their valuational systems, and so are alienated from their actions in a way that undermines responsibility.
?
How convincing is this?
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.