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
    Strawson's own framework distinguishes objective from rea... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→It is reasonable to revise how one treats a person who has revealed callous, unreliable, or untrustworthy attitudes, even if that person could not help being that way.

    Strawson's own framework distinguishes objective from reactive stances precisely because determinism about character warrants the objective stance, not revised moral blame.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If determinism is true about character, reactive attitudes presume an autonomy that doesn't exist, making them rationally indefensible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Strawson's objective stance (like toward weather) appropriately matches our epistemic situation when character is entirely causally determined.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Moral blame requires accountability for choices beyond determining factors; determinism eliminates this, justifying stance revision instead.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Strawson argues reactive attitudes are too fundamental to abandon even if determinism is true; his own position supports modified blame, not elimination.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Determinism about character doesn't entail determinism about decisions; moral agents can still make choices, warranting reactive attitudes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The objective stance toward persons treating them as mere objects to manage, not moral agents—a conclusion most find ethically unacceptable.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Justice & Punishment1 linkedMoral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    Determinism about character doesn't entail determinism about decisions; moral ag...If determinism is true about character, reactive attitudes presume an autonomy t...It is reasonable to revise how one treats a person who has revealed callous, unr...Moral blame requires accountability for choices beyond determining factors; dete...
    +3 moreShow less
    Strawson argues reactive attitudes are too fundamental to abandon even if determ...Strawson's objective stance (like toward weather) appropriately matches our epis...The objective stance toward persons treating them as mere objects to manage, not...

    Details

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