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 characteristic features of Scanlon's interpretation of blame are unnecessary.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.In some cases, such as a hot-headed but ultimately loving family, you can blame another without taking yourself to have impairments in your relationship with that person.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.In such cases, you also do not take yourself to have attendant reasons to revise your intentions or attitudes towards that person.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Strawson's reactive attitudes framework shows blame is constituted by feelings like resentment and indignation, not relational revision intentions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If resentment can occur without any intention to revise relationship attitudes, then Scanlon's relational revision condition is not necessary for blame.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Empirical cases of blame toward strangers or historical figures confirm blame occurs absent any ongoing relationship to impair or revise.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Fischer and Ravizza's reasons-responsiveness account locates blame in judgments about an agent's control, not in the blamer's relational intentions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A theory of blame whose conditions can be fully satisfied without Scanlon's relational features is explanatorily sufficient, rendering those features unnecessary.
      ?

      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