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
    We can confidently infer the reality of our noumenal free... — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    We can confidently infer the reality of our noumenal freedom to choose to do whatever morality requires

    Free Will & ForeknowledgeMoral Responsibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.We have an immediate awareness of our obligation under the moral law
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If we ought to do something, then we must be able to do it (ought implies can)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The phenomenology of moral obligation is compatible with being a deterministic system that feels compelled rather than free.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hume demonstrated that the felt sense of 'ought' arises from sentiment and social conditioning, not evidence of a noumenal self.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the immediate awareness of obligation cannot serve as evidence for a metaphysically distinct freedom beyond the causal order.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.'Ought implies can' establishes only that practical deliberation presupposes ability, not that a noumenal self actually possesses libertarian freedom.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kant's inference from the practical postulate of freedom to its metaphysical reality commits a transcendental illusion he elsewhere explicitly warns against.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityFree Will & Foreknowledge

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedModality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    'Ought implies can' establishes only that practical deliberation presupposes abi...Hume demonstrated that the felt sense of 'ought' arises from sentiment and socia...If we ought to do something, then we must be able to do it (ought implies can)Kant's inference from the practical postulate of freedom to its metaphysical rea...
    +3 moreShow less
    The phenomenology of moral obligation is compatible with being a deterministic s...Therefore, the immediate awareness of obligation cannot serve as evidence for a ...We have an immediate awareness of our obligation under the moral law

    Similar

    Ameriks holds that freedom is to be settled by determining whether we ...78%The Categorical Imperative can fully ground our conception of what mor...77%Therefore noumenal freedom must be efficacious within phenomenal natur...77%When we act immorally, our choice is free and attributable to us even ...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: aesthetics-18th-german
    View source passageHide passage
    But what problem about the efficacy of the laws of freedom in the realm of nature could remain to be solved after the first two critiques? The Critique of Pure Reason had argued that although we can disprove the possibility of any breach in the determinism of the natural world and cannot have theoretical knowledge of the freedom of our will in the noumenal world, nevertheless we can coherently conceive of the latter. And the Critique of Practical Reason had argued that we can confidently infer t
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit