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 Zygote argument does not give us reason to think Bert is unfree or not morally responsible

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The historical facts about Ernie's creation (being created by a goddess, with Laplacian predictor powers, with certain intentions) are not relevant to whether Ernie acts freely 30 years later
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If those historical facts are not relevant, they do not provide reasons for thinking Ernie is unfree
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.We have independent reasons for thinking Bert acts freely and is morally responsible: he satisfies ordinary real-life conditions and all conditions of the best compatibilist accounts
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Sourcehood conditions for moral responsibility must be evaluated at the time of action, not traced back to causal origins outside the agent's control.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Frankfurt's hierarchical mesh theory establishes that an agent acts freely when their effective will aligns with higher-order volitions, regardless of the causal history producing those volitions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Bert's deliberative processes, values, and higher-order endorsements at the time of action are entirely his own, satisfying all internalist conditions for responsible agency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The manipulation argument trades on an intuitive asymmetry between designed and naturally caused behavior, but Mele's own 'soft compatibilism' shows this asymmetry collapses under scrutiny when agents develop authentically over time.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bert's 30-year developmental history constitutes a genuine process of character formation that meets Fischer and Ravizza's reasons-responsiveness criterion for moral responsibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An argument form that entails no agent in a deterministic universe is ever responsible proves too much and must be rejected by modus tollens, given strong pre-theoretical intuitions about ordinary responsibility.
      ?

      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.