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 Blackburn's quasi-realist program explicitly acknowledges that expressivist accounts require supplementary logic for embedded moral clauses.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Calling supplementary logic 'explicit acknowledgment of a requirement' obscures whether expressivism is fundamentally flawed or merely incomplete.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The need for additional logical apparatus suggests expressivism may not capture moral language's core function, requiring theoretical patches.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Other metaethical theories (realism, constructivism) handle embedded clauses without requiring separate logical systems, questioning expressivism's viability.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Expressivism struggles with moral statements in conditional contexts like 'if torture is wrong, then X'. Supplementary logic is needed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Blackburn's quasi-realism explicitly addresses the Frege-Geach problem by developing a compositional semantics for embedded clauses.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Pure expressivism cannot explain logical validity of inferences involving moral terms without additional formal machinery.
      ?

      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.