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 mere psychological contingency cannot ground a normativ... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→It is rational to deplore death more than we deplore our not having always existed.

    A mere psychological contingency cannot ground a normative claim about what it is rational to deplore more.

    ?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.Normative facts about rationality must transcend contingent psychological facts, or they collapse into mere descriptions of human nature.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If what we ought to deplore depends only on how we happen to be psychologically constituted, then normative claims lose their prescriptive force.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Rational standards require objective criteria independent of subjective mental states, otherwise disagreement becomes merely factual, not normative.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Our psychological constitution is the only epistemic access we have to rationality; grounding doesn't require transcendence, only coherence within our practices.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Normative claims can be genuinely binding while still emerging from contingent features if they reflect our deepest commitments and values, not surface psychology.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The distinction between 'merely psychological' and 'genuinely normative' may be false—perhaps rationality just is systematic organization of our contingent concerns.
      ?

      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

    Afterlife & Death1 linked

    Related

    If what we ought to deplore depends only on how we happen to be psychologically ...It is rational to deplore death more than we deplore our not having always exist...Normative claims can be genuinely binding while still emerging from contingent f...Normative facts about rationality must transcend contingent psychological facts,...
    +3 moreShow less
    Our psychological constitution is the only epistemic access we have to rationali...Rational standards require objective criteria independent of subjective mental s...The distinction between 'merely psychological' and 'genuinely normative' may be ...

    Details

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