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 Reclassifying ε_s as environmental when it tracks voluntary behavioral dispositions dissolves the very distinction that grounds responsibility attribution, making the claim self-undermining.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Voluntariness can be tracked and causally attributed even without a metaphysical internal/external boundary; distinction may be pragmatic, not constitutive.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Environmental factors shaping dispositions doesn't erase their role in causing behavior; agents remain causally responsible through their (shaped) dispositions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The charge of self-undermining assumes dissolving a distinction destroys responsibility; but responsibility might persist through different conceptual frameworks.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Responsibility requires agents be identifiable as distinct causal sources; if dispositions become 'environmental,' the agent dissolves into background conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The internal/external distinction is constitutive of moral agency itself; collapsing it eliminates the conceptual scaffolding responsibility rests upon.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Self-undermining arguments signal conceptual incoherence; if a theory destroys its own foundations, it cannot ground the conclusions it defends.
      ?

      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.