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 idea that we are responsible is to be understood by the practice of reactive attitudes, not the other way around.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Reactive attitudes like resentment and indignation presuppose judgments of desert that have normative content independent of the practice itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If practices constituted responsibility rather than tracking it, we could not distinguish legitimate reactive attitudes from mere social coercion or prejudice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.P.F. Strawson's own account requires distinguishing 'objective' from 'participant' stances, a distinction that smuggles in a pre-practical criterion of responsible agency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Fischer and Ravizza's reasons-responsiveness account demonstrates that moral responsibility is grounded in an agent's capacity to recognize and respond to moral reasons, a capacity that is conceptually prior to any social practice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If responsibility derives solely from reactive practices, then communities with systematically distorted practices—punishing the innocent, excusing the powerful—would thereby constitute genuine responsibility, which is a reductio of the view.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.There is no independent notion of responsibility that explains the propriety of the reactive attitudes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.It is not that we hold people responsible because they are responsible; rather, expressing our concerns and demands about our treatment of one another constitutes the practice from which the idea of responsibility derives.
      ?

      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.