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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.