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
    Contradiction requires that the two claims cannot both be... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Genuine moral disagreement about what ought to be done is only possible between parties who share the same ends but disagree about means.

    Contradiction requires that the two claims cannot both be true.

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    2 topics

    Consequentialism1 linked

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Moral Responsibility
    1 linked

    Related

    Genuine moral disagreement about what ought to be done is only possible between ...On a consequentialist reading indexed to individual ends, 'ought' claims are com...Therefore, only when ends are shared can one party's 'ought' claim exclude the o...Two 'ought' claims indexed to different ends can both be true simultaneously.

    Similar

    These two claims are incompatible.88%Non-synonymy of two claims does not entail that either claim is false.86%Contradictory beliefs cannot both be true85%Smith and Ramirez cannot believe the same proposition because one beli...83%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: russell-moral
    View source passageHide passage
    But the situation is a little different when we come to judgments about what is right or what ought to be done. As we have seen, Russell is inclined to give such judgments a consequentialist reading and then to index them to some presumed set of projects. It is therefore true with respect to, say, Russell and myself that we ought to abolish the Death Penalty, since abolishing the Death Penalty is conducive to the ends that we happen to favor. But it is equally true with respect to some hardcore

    Details

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

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective