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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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