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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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