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
    T.M. Scanlon's buck-passing account grounds blame in the ... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Blame cannot essentially implicate interpersonal relationships.

    T.M. Scanlon's buck-passing account grounds blame in the judgment that an agent's will impairs reasons for attitudes—a purely normative relation independent of personal history.

    ?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.Blame grounded in reasons is more objective than blame based on emotional reactions or personal relationships to the wrongdoer.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If blame depends on personal history, identical actions warrant different blame based on agent biography, undermining principled judgment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Normative relations like 'impairs reasons' are mind-independent facts that can justify blame without circular appeal to blame itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Personal history shapes what reasons an agent actually had and could access; ignoring it treats agents as decontextualized will-bearers.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Blame practices inherently concern whether an agent should have known and cared about violated norms—facts historically and socially embedded.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Pure normative relations cannot explain why we blame some reason-impairing acts but not others without invoking prior judgments about agency.
      ?

      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

    1 topic

    Moral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    Blame cannot essentially implicate interpersonal relationships.Blame grounded in reasons is more objective than blame based on emotional reacti...Blame practices inherently concern whether an agent should have known and cared ...If blame depends on personal history, identical actions warrant different blame ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Normative relations like 'impairs reasons' are mind-independent facts that can j...Personal history shapes what reasons an agent actually had and could access; ign...Pure normative relations cannot explain why we blame some reason-impairing acts ...

    Details

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