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
    Appeals to normative facts cannot explain how those facts... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Appeals to normative facts cannot explain how those facts count as reasons or motivate rational agents.

    Moral ResponsibilityTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    0 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Realists anchor practical reasons in facts that are intrinsically normative.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Even granting that a normative fact exists (e.g., that deception is morally wrong), awareness of that fact does not by itself rationally compel an agent to act accordingly.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The question of how a normative fact compels action is itself a normative question about authority, not merely a psychological question about causal influence on the mind.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityTruth & Knowledge

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Related

    Even granting that a normative fact exists (e.g., that deception is morally wron...Realists anchor practical reasons in facts that are intrinsically normative.The question of how a normative fact compels action is itself a normative questi...

    Similar

    Questions about normative reasons bear directly on the justification o...84%Moral normativity has an essential connection to the motivations of ag...84%Realists anchor practical reasons in facts that are intrinsically norm...83%While an agent must know or believe the thing that constitutes a reaso...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: constructivism-metaethics
    View source passageHide passage
    Korsgaard’s case for constructivism parallels Kant’s argument for the autonomy of practical reason, as Rawls reconstructs it. It starts by objecting that substantive realism fails to respond to the skeptical challenge that there really are no reasons to be moral. This is because realism simply assumes the existence of objective standards for morality without offering a rational basis for them; hence the realist affirms what the skeptic denies. As a consequence, the realist also fails to show why
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    1 (0 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit