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 story of responsibility based solely on attributing actions to agents is incomplete.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.P.F. Strawson's reactive attitudes account grounds responsibility fully in the quality of will expressed in actions, without requiring separate accountability norms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The adversarial responses Watson identifies as accountability practices (indignation, resentment) are themselves explained by attributability: we react because the action reflects the agent's will.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, accountability practices are derivable from attributability rather than constituting an independent, irreducible layer of responsibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Angela Smith's reasons-responsiveness model demonstrates that moral responsibility is exhausted by whether an action reflects an agent's rational agency and reasons-sensitivity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If responsibility is fully captured by the agent's rational control over action, then fairness constraints Watson cites as beyond attributability are internal to, not external supplements of, the attributability relation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.We hold agents responsible for their behavior, which is not just a matter of the relation of an individual to her behavior.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When we hold responsible, we also demand certain conduct from one another and respond adversely to one another's failures to comply with these demands.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The moral demands and potential for adverse treatment associated with holding others responsible are part of our accountability practices, and these features raise issues of fairness that do not arise in the context of determining whether behavior is attributable to an agent.
      ?

      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.