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 revised Russellian theory would have to distinguish between different uses of 'good', giving one account for asserted contexts and a different account for unasserted contexts

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Russell's original theory only accounts for asserted uses of 'X is good'
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A revised theory would need to explain how 'X is good' is meaningful in unasserted contexts
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Explaining unasserted contexts requires a different semantic account than the optative analysis used for asserted contexts
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Frege's embedding problem shows that moral terms in conditionals like 'If X is good, we should do X' cannot carry illocutionary force.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Geach's argument demonstrates that 'good' in unasserted contexts must have descriptive content stable enough to permit logical inference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An optative analysis that only triggers in assertion contexts cannot preserve logical validity across embedded and unembedded occurrences of the same term.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Blackburn's quasi-realist program explicitly acknowledges that expressivist accounts require supplementary logic for embedded moral clauses.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The need for such supplementary logic in quasi-realism confirms that asserted and unasserted moral contexts demand structurally distinct semantic treatments.
      ?

      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.