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
    A constitutive grounding relation makes the 'first defend... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The two components of a moral argument — defending moral realism and arguing for a theistic explanation — cannot be accomplished simultaneously.

    A constitutive grounding relation makes the 'first defend, then explain' sequential model a false picture of how foundational theories work.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Constitutive grounding is simultaneous: foundational elements constitute conclusions at the same time, not sequentially.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Defense and explanation are mutually dependent in foundational theories; you cannot defend without already explaining grounds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The 'defend then explain' model assumes independence between justification and constitution that doesn't reflect actual metaphysical structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Sequential ordering describes epistemic process (how we learn), not metaphysical structure; these are distinct issues.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Foundational theories can be presented sequentially as pedagogy while grounding relations remain constitutive and non-sequential.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim conflates how grounding *is* with how grounding must be *presented* or *discovered* in argumentation.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Natural Theology1 linked

    Related

    Constitutive grounding is simultaneous: foundational elements constitute conclus...Defense and explanation are mutually dependent in foundational theories; you can...Foundational theories can be presented sequentially as pedagogy while grounding ...Sequential ordering describes epistemic process (how we learn), not metaphysical...
    +3 moreShow less
    The 'defend then explain' model assumes independence between justification and c...The claim conflates how grounding *is* with how grounding must be *presented* or...The two components of a moral argument — defending moral realism and arguing for...

    Details

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