Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that A creature can be responsive to reasons and act accordingly even if it lacks the capacity to articulate those reasons in propositional language.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Responsiveness to reasons requires conceptual content; non-linguistic creatures lack structured concepts needed for genuine reason-relations.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Distinguishing mere stimulus-response from reason-responsiveness requires observable articulation; otherwise ascription becomes unfalsifiable.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Practical competence and reason-responsiveness are distinct; a dog catching a frisbee responds to conditions, not to reasons qua reasons.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Animals exhibit goal-directed behavior adjusted to environmental feedback without linguistic capacity, indicating reason-responsiveness.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Propositional articulation is a distinct cognitive skill from grasping reasons; one can understand without expressing linguistically.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Human infants demonstrate practical reasoning before language acquisition, suggesting responsiveness to reasons precedes linguistic ability.
?
How convincing is this?
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.