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 incompatibilist position is correct: if determinism i... — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The incompatibilist position is correct: if determinism is true, agents never have the ability to choose or do otherwise than what they actually do

    Free Will & ForeknowledgeMoral Responsibility
    ?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.There is a growing philosophical consensus that the incompatibilist is right
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Consequence argument has undermined the earlier consensus that incompatibilists commit a simple confusion similar to fatalism
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Compatibilists like Frankfurt show 'could have done otherwise' is not required for moral responsibility via cases of pre-empted alternatives.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If moral responsibility does not require alternative possibilities, then the incompatibilist's core inference from determinism to unfreedom loses its practical significance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The Consequence Argument's transfer of necessity principle (Beta) has been independently challenged by McKay and Johnson as invalid in certain modal logics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Categorical abilities, as defended by Vihvelin, can be grounded in intrinsic dispositional properties of agents that persist even under determinism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'able to do otherwise' means possessing the relevant skill-based disposition rather than accessing an indeterministic branch, determinism does not eliminate such abilities.
      ?

      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 ResponsibilityFree Will & Foreknowledge

    Related

    Categorical abilities, as defended by Vihvelin, can be grounded in intrinsic dis...Compatibilists like Frankfurt show 'could have done otherwise' is not required f...If 'able to do otherwise' means possessing the relevant skill-based disposition ...If moral responsibility does not require alternative possibilities, then the inc...
    +3 moreShow less
    The Consequence Argument's transfer of necessity principle (Beta) has been indep...The Consequence argument has undermined the earlier consensus that incompatibili...There is a growing philosophical consensus that the incompatibilist is right

    Similar

    While determinism may make an agent's action unavoidable, it does not ...86%Responses based on a confused interpretation of determinism do not ref...83%If determinism is true, then no one has the ability to do anything oth...83%Hard incompatibilism's skeptical conclusions do not depend on the trut...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: incompatibilism-arguments
    View source passageHide passage
    Frankfurt’s aim was to make it easier to defend the claim that moral responsibility is compatible with determinism and there is a case to be made that he was successful or, at least, successful against the “Source” incompatibilists who were convinced by his argument (Fischer 2003, Sartorio 2016). But there has been a cost. Our interest in free will is not limited to our interest in moral responsibility. Compatibilism has historically been charged with being “a wretched subterfuge” and a “quagmir
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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