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 criterial/causal distinction presupposes non-naturalism... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The inference from 'Act A is a lie' to 'Act A is wrong' is criterial evidence, not causal or standard inductive evidence.

    A criterial/causal distinction presupposes non-naturalism, which is a substantive metaethical commitment, not a neutral logical observation.

    ?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.Naturalism requires that all facts reduce to physical/causal facts. A criterial distinction (conceptual/definitional) cannot be reduced to causation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Making a criterial/causal distinction implicitly claims some facts are non-causal, which contradicts naturalism's core commitment to causal exhaustiveness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim appears neutral only if one smuggles in naturalist assumptions. Explicitly rejecting it requires defending non-causal ethical facts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Logical distinctions (criterial vs. causal) are framework-independent tools applicable within naturalism or non-naturalism; they don't presuppose either.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Naturalists can distinguish criteria from causes while reducing both to natural facts—criteria are natural epistemic access points to natural causal processes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Calling this observation 'substantive' begs the question; the burden is on the claimant to show the distinction *itself* (not its implications) requires non-naturalism.
      ?

      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

    Truth & Knowledge1 linked

    Related

    Calling this observation 'substantive' begs the question; the burden is on the c...Logical distinctions (criterial vs. causal) are framework-independent tools appl...Making a criterial/causal distinction implicitly claims some facts are non-causa...Naturalism requires that all facts reduce to physical/causal facts. A criterial ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Naturalists can distinguish criteria from causes while reducing both to natural ...The claim appears neutral only if one smuggles in naturalist assumptions. Explic...The inference from 'Act A is a lie' to 'Act A is wrong' is criterial evidence, n...

    Details

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