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 semantic analysis that undermines the validity of basic... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Indexing 'ought' to different ends fails as an analysis of moral obligation

    A semantic analysis that undermines the validity of basic deontic inferences recognized across Hare's prescriptivism and standard deontic logic must be rejected as inadequate.

    ?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.Cross-theoretical convergence on basic deontic inferences (ought implies can, consistency norms) suggests deep logical truths about normativity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Semantic theories that contradict established formal systems lose explanatory power for how we actually reason about obligations and permissions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Rejecting foundational deontic inferences creates a reductio: it renders core moral discourse incoherent or self-defeating.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Widespread agreement between Hare and SDL may reflect shared historical assumptions rather than semantic truth—both could be systematically mistaken.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A radical semantic analysis might preserve deontic reasoning while reinterpreting its logical structure, showing inadequacy ≠ falsehood.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Rejecting certain inferences may be justified if they rest on confused concepts—adequacy requires truth, not mere conformity to tradition.
      ?

      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

    2 topics

    Philosophy of Language1 linkedMoral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    A radical semantic analysis might preserve deontic reasoning while reinterpretin...Cross-theoretical convergence on basic deontic inferences (ought implies can, co...Indexing 'ought' to different ends fails as an analysis of moral obligationRejecting certain inferences may be justified if they rest on confused concepts—...
    +3 moreShow less
    Rejecting foundational deontic inferences creates a reductio: it renders core mo...Semantic theories that contradict established formal systems lose explanatory po...Widespread agreement between Hare and SDL may reflect shared historical assumpti...

    Details

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