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 Strawson's reactive attitudes account grounds responsibility in susceptibility to practices of holding responsible, not in prior moral receptivity.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Susceptibility to practices alone cannot distinguish justified from unjustified blame—a cult can hold members responsible unfairly.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If responsibility just tracks what practices we engage in, then changing practices could make the innocent responsible and guilty free.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The account assumes reactive attitudes are appropriate responses, but this requires prior standards of moral appropriateness to evaluate them.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Responsibility practices (blame, resentment, gratitude) are universal social phenomena that predate moral theory.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Grounding responsibility in susceptibility to these practices avoids circular reasoning about prior moral facts.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
This account explains why we hold responsible those who lack explicit moral understanding but participate in social relationships.
?
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.