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
    The defendant is not responsible for his action because h... — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The defendant is not responsible for his action because he did not make himself.

    Justice & Punishment
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.A person is only responsible for an action if they made themselves (i.e., are the author of their own character and dispositions).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The defendant did not make himself — he is a product of heredity and environment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Moral responsibility requires only the capacity for rational self-governance at the time of action, not authorship of one's causal origins.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Frankfurt's hierarchical compatibilism shows an agent is responsible when their action flows from endorsed second-order desires, regardless of how those desires originated.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Demanding self-creation as a condition of responsibility generates an infinite regress, since any prior self-creating act would itself require a yet-earlier self-creating self.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Strawson's reactive attitudes account grounds responsibility in the quality of will expressed toward others, not in metaphysical self-authorship.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Practices of holding responsible are constitutive of moral community membership, and suspending them wholesale on incompatibilist grounds would dissolve morally indispensable human relationships.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityJustice & Punishment

    Related

    A person is only responsible for an action if they made themselves (i.e., are th...Demanding self-creation as a condition of responsibility generates an infinite r...Frankfurt's hierarchical compatibilism shows an agent is responsible when their ...Moral responsibility requires only the capacity for rational self-governance at ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Practices of holding responsible are constitutive of moral community membership,...Strawson's reactive attitudes account grounds responsibility in the quality of w...The defendant did not make himself — he is a product of heredity and environment...

    Similar

    The defendant did not make himself — he is a product of heredity and e...86%If the argument that a person is not responsible because they did not ...80%A person is only responsible for an action if they made themselves (i....80%Victim is not morally responsible for his actions77%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: incompatibilism-arguments
    View source passageHide passage
    The defense attorney is trying to persuade the jurors that his client is not responsible for his action, but not for any of the standard excusing conditions—insanity, accident, mistaken belief, duress, mental handicap, and so on. Nor does he claim that there is anything that distinguishes his client from any of the rest of us. His argument is that his client is not responsible because he did not make himself. But none of us has made ourselves (at least not from scratch)—we are all the products o
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit