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
    There is no relevant difference between Cases 1, 2, and 3... — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Plum is not morally responsible in Case 4 (a normal human being in a causally deterministic universe).

    There is no relevant difference between Cases 1, 2, and 3 such that our judgments about Plum's responsibility should differ across these three cases.

    Moral Responsibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Moral Responsibility

    Related

    Case 4 shares the defining feature of causal determinism with Cases 1, 2, and 3.Plum is not morally responsible in Case 4 (a normal human being in a causally de...The reason Plum is not responsible in Cases 1, 2, and 3 is that his behavior is ...

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Moral Responsibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    There is no relevant difference between Ernie and Bert with respect to...79%The reason Plum is not responsible in Cases 1, 2, and 3 is that his be...76%When there are no morally relevant differences between two situations,...76%Both Y and Z may be morally responsible for X's crimes despite neither...75%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: moral-responsibility
    View source passageHide passage
    Pereboom claims that there is no relevant difference between Cases 1, 2, and 3 such that our judgments about Plum’s responsibility should be different in these three cases. Furthermore, the reason that Plum is not responsible in these cases seems to be that, in each case, his behavior is causally determined by forces beyond his control (Pereboom 2001: 116). But then we should conclude that Plum is not responsible in Case 4 (since causal determinism is the defining feature of that case). And since, in Case 4, Plum is just a normal human being in a causally deterministic universe, the conclusion...

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective