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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Moral Responsibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.