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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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