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
    Cornell Realists like Sturgeon and Boyd argue 'good' refe... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Good cannot be analysed in naturalistic terms

    Cornell Realists like Sturgeon and Boyd argue 'good' refers to natural properties via causal-functional role, not synonymous definition, avoiding tautology entirely.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Scientific terms like 'water' refer to H2O via causal role, not definition. 'Good' should work similarly for natural moral properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Causal-functional reference avoids the open question argument: we can coherently ask 'is X good?' even after identifying natural properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Moral realism requires 'good' to pick out objective features. Causal roles ground reference to mind-independent natural properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The causal-functional account presupposes we already know which natural properties play the 'good' role—but that's precisely what's contested.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Even if 'good' causally refers to natural properties, this doesn't explain why those properties matter morally or ground our obligations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Moral disagreement persists despite shared causal-functional competence. This suggests reference doesn't settle the substantive moral question.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedVirtue Ethics1 linked

    Related

    Causal-functional reference avoids the open question argument: we can coherently...Even if 'good' causally refers to natural properties, this doesn't explain why t...Good cannot be analysed in naturalistic termsMoral disagreement persists despite shared causal-functional competence. This su...
    +3 moreShow less
    Moral realism requires 'good' to pick out objective features. Causal roles groun...Scientific terms like 'water' refer to H2O via causal role, not definition. 'Goo...The causal-functional account presupposes we already know which natural properti...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit