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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.