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 philosophical consensus that incompatibilists commit a simple mistake comparable to fatalism is no longer tenable

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • The Consequence argument provides a substantive case for incompatibilism that cannot be dismissed as a simple confusion
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Van Inwagen's Consequence Argument employs inference rules (Beta, Beta-2) that resist valid formal derivation without question-begging assumptions about ability transfer.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.McKay and Johnson (1991) demonstrated Beta is invalid by constructing counterexamples where unavoidability fails to transfer across conjunction, undermining incompatibilism's logical foundation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A parallel logical gap between determinism and the absence of alternatives mirrors the fatalist fallacy of inferring powerlessness from truth, not from causal structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Dennett's critique in 'Elbow Room' establishes that incompatibilists systematically conflate the inability to alter the laws of nature with the absence of meaningful agentive control.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Fischer's semi-compatibilism shows robust moral responsibility requires only reasons-responsiveness, a capacity fully preserved under determinism, making incompatibilist intuitions diagnostically misleading rather than philosophically decisive.
      ?

      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.