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
    Disagreements about moral definitions do not imply moral ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Disagreements about moral definitions do not imply moral relativism.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Disagreements about definitions of concepts like property, justice, or murder result from insufficient reasoning about the simple ideas comprising those moral ideas.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bias, prejudice, and other irrational influences — not the nature of moral ideas themselves — cause definitional disputes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Mackie's argument from queerness holds that objective moral properties would be metaphysically anomalous entities unlike anything else in the natural world.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Persistent, cross-cultural definitional disagreement is better explained by the absence of moral facts than by universal human failures of reasoning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Attributing all moral disagreement to bias or insufficient reasoning is an ad hoc maneuver that insulates the claim from empirical falsification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's rule-following considerations show that no shared 'simple ideas' can uniquely determine correct application of moral concepts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the same simple ideas systematically yield divergent moral definitions across cultures, the divergence is constitutive, not merely a product of bias.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    Attributing all moral disagreement to bias or insufficient reasoning is an ad ho...Bias, prejudice, and other irrational influences — not the nature of moral ideas...Disagreements about definitions of concepts like property, justice, or murder re...If the same simple ideas systematically yield divergent moral definitions across...
    +3 moreShow less
    Mackie's argument from queerness holds that objective moral properties would be ...Persistent, cross-cultural definitional disagreement is better explained by the ...Wittgenstein's rule-following considerations show that no shared 'simple ideas' ...

    Similar

    Normative moral relativism is self-undermining when used to ground a u...80%Skepticism about moral truth does not imply skepticism about moral kno...79%A position that presupposes the objective truth or falsity of moral ju...78%Aquinas' teaching on the binding force of erroneous conscience is not ...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: locke-moral
    View source passageHide passage
    This might seem to be a tall order when considering the controversy generated by beliefs about moral rules, yet Locke clearly believes that moral rules can, with the right mental effort, yield indisputable universal laws. Locke offers an example of how this might work, by analyzing the moral proposition Where there is no property, there is no injustice. In order to see the demonstrable certainty of this claim, we have to examine the composite ideas and how those agree or disagree with one anothe
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit