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
    Any proposed reduction of 'good' to a natural property N ... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Moral properties such as goodness cannot be defined in wholly psychological, biological, or sociological terms.

    Any proposed reduction of 'good' to a natural property N permits coherent assertion of 'x is N but is x good?' without logical contradiction.

    ?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.The open question argument shows that for any natural property N, 'N but not good?' remains conceptually intelligible without logical contradiction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Natural properties are descriptive; 'good' carries irreducible normative force that descriptive content alone cannot capture or entail.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If goodness reduced to N, then 'not-N' would entail 'not-good,' but we can coherently imagine N-instances lacking evaluative merit.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Coherent assertion doesn't prove logical independence; we can ask 'Is water H2O?' despite water necessarily being H2O chemically.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The claim conflates semantic non-identity with metaphysical non-identity; 'good' might be identical to N even if analytically distinct.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Our inability to psychologically recognize a reduction doesn't demonstrate it's impossible; conceptual gaps don't entail metaphysical gaps.
      ?

      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

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedVirtue Ethics1 linked

    Related

    Coherent assertion doesn't prove logical independence; we can ask 'Is water H2O?...If goodness reduced to N, then 'not-N' would entail 'not-good,' but we can coher...Moral properties such as goodness cannot be defined in wholly psychological, bio...Natural properties are descriptive; 'good' carries irreducible normative force t...
    +3 moreShow less
    Our inability to psychologically recognize a reduction doesn't demonstrate it's ...The claim conflates semantic non-identity with metaphysical non-identity; 'good'...The open question argument shows that for any natural property N, 'N but not goo...

    Details

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