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 Counterfactual Motivation versions of internalism commit the conditional fallacy.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The conditional fallacy occurs when a theory claims an agent has a reason to do A only if the agent would be motivated under certain conditions, yet those very conditions eliminate the reason.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Some internalist theses appeal to counterfactuals involving full rationality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Some reasons exist precisely because an agent is not fully rational.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Williams's full rationality condition transforms an agent's actual motivational set into a hypothetical set that may lack the original set's constitutive features.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A counterfactual specifying idealized deliberation self-undermines when the idealization removes the very psychological states grounding the agent's practical identity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Korsgaard's constitutivism confirms that reasons tied to non-rational commitments dissolve under conditions that eliminate those commitments, exposing the fallacy structurally.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Johnston's conditional fallacy criterion requires that the test conditions be compatible with the existence of the very phenomenon being tested.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Full rationality counterfactuals are incompatible with reasons grounded in akrasia, addiction, or weakness of will, which are paradigmatic cases internalists must accommodate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Because the counterfactual condition is not co-satisfiable with the reason's existence condition, the internalist schema is formally defective, not merely contingently incomplete.
      ?

      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.