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 We should be skeptical about moral responsibility.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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