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 Aristotle's function argument is vulnerable to the is-ought criticism.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The function argument moves from a premise about what humans are (human nature) to a conclusion about what humans ought to be.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Modern moral theory holds that there is a fact-value distinction that prohibits deriving normative conclusions from purely descriptive premises.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aristotle's ergon argument infers eudaimonia from the distinctive function of humans (rational activity), treating 'function' as inherently normative.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hume's guillotine requires that no normative conclusion follow from purely descriptive premises, yet 'function' already smuggles in teleological normativity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.G.E. Moore's open-question argument shows that identifying goodness with any natural property, including rational functioning, commits the naturalistic fallacy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Philippa Foot's neo-Aristotelian naturalism requires grounding normativity in biological facts about species flourishing, which itself presupposes contested metaphysical teleology.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the function argument's validity depends on accepting Aristotelian teleology, it begs the question against naturalists who reject intrinsic biological norms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.R.M. Hare's prescriptivism demonstrates that evaluative language has action-guiding force that purely descriptive biological claims cannot logically generate.
      ?

      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.