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
    We should be skeptical about moral responsibility. — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    We should be skeptical about moral responsibility.

    Moral 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.The four-case argument shows that if determinism is true, we cannot be the sources of our actions in the way required for moral responsibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Pereboom also argues that we lack the sort of free will required for responsibility even if determinism is false.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Together, these arguments cover both the deterministic and indeterministic cases, leaving no scenario in which we have the free will required for moral responsibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Strawson's Basic Argument targets agent-causation, but compatibilist responsibility requires only reasons-responsiveness, not ultimate origination.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Fischer and Ravizza show that an agent is responsible when their mechanism for acting is reasons-responsive and appropriately their own, regardless of determinism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Pereboom's four cases conflate manipulation with determinism by ignoring that causal history matters only when it bypasses the agent's own reasons-responsive mechanism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Vargas's revisionist strategy shows that the folk concept of moral responsibility can be revised to track what actually matters: effective moral practices and agency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Skeptical arguments inherit their force from an inflated, libertarian-laden concept of responsibility that neither folk psychology nor normative theory actually requires.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the target concept is refined to match legitimate social functions—holding agents accountable, incentivizing behavior—skepticism loses its primary motivating force.
      ?

      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 Responsibility

    Related

    Fischer and Ravizza show that an agent is responsible when their mechanism for a...If the target concept is refined to match legitimate social functions—holding ag...Pereboom also argues that we lack the sort of free will required for responsibil...Pereboom's four cases conflate manipulation with determinism by ignoring that ca...
    +5 moreShow less
    Skeptical arguments inherit their force from an inflated, libertarian-laden conc...Strawson's Basic Argument targets agent-causation, but compatibilist responsibil...The four-case argument shows that if determinism is true, we cannot be the sourc...Together, these arguments cover both the deterministic and indeterministic cases...Vargas's revisionist strategy shows that the folk concept of moral responsibilit...

    Similar

    Other notions of moral responsibility exist that do not conform to Kan...87%Real Self views have some explanatory merit regarding moral responsibi...86%Freedom is necessary for moral responsibility84%Non-Kantian notions of moral responsibility cannot be dismissed simply...84%

    Source

    AI-extracted2/3 agreementValid
    SEP: moral-responsibility
    Pereboom's four-case argument and related skeptical perspective
    View source passageHide passage
    The four-case argument attempts to show that if determinism is true, then we cannot be the sources of our actions in the way required for moral responsibility. It is, therefore, an argument for incompatibilism rather than for skepticism about moral responsibility. But, in combination with Pereboom’s argument that we lack the sort of free will required for responsibility even if determinism is false (2001: 38–88; 2014: 30–70), the four-case argument has emerged as an important part of a detailed and influential skeptical perspective. For other skeptical accounts, see Caruso (2016), Smilansky (2...
    Extraction notes

    Validity: The passage explicitly states that the four-case argument (covering the deterministic case) combined with Pereboom's argument (covering the indeterministic case) forms "an important part of a detailed and influential skeptical perspective," which clearly entails the extracted argument that together these premises support skepticism about moral responsibility.

    Confidence: The overall skeptical argument is clearly entailed by the combination of the two sub-arguments described in the text, though the passage is partly expository.

    Details

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