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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The ability of individuals to control actions or harms is not a necessary criterion for collective moral responsibility.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Moral responsibility requires the 'could have done otherwise' condition, as Fischer and Ravizza's reasons-responsiveness account demands agent-level control.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When individuals lack control over a collective system, attributing moral responsibility to them violates the fundamental Kantian principle that 'ought implies can'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Raikka's subtraction of the control criterion severs moral responsibility from its action-theoretic foundations, collapsing the distinction between responsibility and mere causal implication.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.H.D. Lewis's methodological individualism holds that only individual persons are genuine moral agents, making group-level responsibility a category error unless reducible to individual agency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without control as a criterion, collective responsibility becomes indistinguishable from strict liability, which most moral theorists reject as a basis for genuine blameworthiness rather than mere compensatory obligation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Raikka subtracts the control criterion from the conventionally invoked criteria of collective responsibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Collective responsibility can attach to individuals who lack control over the system implicating them in evil.
      ?

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42