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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The fatalistic inference to (10) is blocked regardless of whether steps (1)-(8) succeed or fail.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The Frankfurt-style cases that falsify (9) presuppose the agent could have done otherwise in some robust sense prior to the counterfactual intervener activating.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the argument succeeds through (8), the causal history eliminating alternatives may itself undermine the sourcehood conditions Frankfurt cases require to preserve freedom.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A fatalistic inference blocked by denying (9) still yields unfreedom if the agent's action is causally overdetermined by factors wholly outside their control.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.van Inwagen's consequence argument establishes that inability to do otherwise, when grounded in laws and the remote past, transfers responsibility-undermining unfreedom regardless of whether the constraint explains the action.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The supporting argument's distinction between explanation and deprivation of alternatives collapses if compatibilist sourcehood itself requires a history not fixed by factors beyond the agent's control.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Either the argument fails somewhere along the way to (8), or it succeeds up through (8).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If it fails at one of these earlier steps, the fatalistic argument fails full stop.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If it reaches step (8) successfully, we have a case in which you cannot do otherwise than answer the phone tomorrow morning, but you are presumptively free in doing so, since you are acting on your own, and the circumstances that deprive you of alternatives do not in any way explain your action.
      ?

      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.