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 Without robust agent-causation, the foundational claim that offenders categorically deserve suffering for past acts becomes incoherent.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Desert can attach to responsible agency without libertarian free will; compatibilist accounts ground desert in actual decision-making capacities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The claim confuses metaphysical conditions for desert with epistemic justification; we needn't resolve free will to justify proportional punishment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Even if agent-causation fails, social practices of accountability remain functionally necessary and rationally defensible independent of metaphysics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Moral desert requires that agents could have acted otherwise; without agent-causation, determinism makes alternative possibilities impossible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Punishment justified by retribution assumes the offender is a responsible originator of harm, not merely a link in a causal chain.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If past acts are fully determined by prior conditions, holding someone solely accountable for them conflates causation with 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.