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
    Emotional judgments can explain recalcitrance to reason — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Emotional judgments can explain recalcitrance to reason

    Consciousness & MindMoral 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.Emotional judgments are capable of being held jointly with contradictory judgments
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The capacity to hold contradictory judgments simultaneously accounts for why emotions persist despite contrary rational verdicts
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Recalcitrant emotions are better explained by non-cognitive physiological arousal states that operate independently of judgment formation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.William James and Jesse Prinz demonstrate that bodily feedback mechanisms, not competing judgments, sustain emotions against rational revision.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If emotions were judgment-based, therapeutic rational persuasion would reliably dissolve them, but empirical evidence from affective neuroscience shows it does not.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Holding contradictory judgments simultaneously violates basic norms of rational agency in ways that make the posited mechanism explanatorily incoherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Donald Davidson's account of akrasia shows that apparent judgment-contradictions resolve into temporally or modally partitioned beliefs, eliminating genuine simultaneity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If recalcitrance merely reflects partitioned rather than truly contradictory judgments, the emotional judgment framework explains nothing distinctive about emotional persistence.
      ?

      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 ResponsibilityConsciousness & Mind

    Related

    Donald Davidson's account of akrasia shows that apparent judgment-contradictions...Emotional judgments are capable of being held jointly with contradictory judgmen...Holding contradictory judgments simultaneously violates basic norms of rational ...If emotions were judgment-based, therapeutic rational persuasion would reliably ...
    +4 moreShow less
    If recalcitrance merely reflects partitioned rather than truly contradictory jud...Recalcitrant emotions are better explained by non-cognitive physiological arousa...The capacity to hold contradictory judgments simultaneously accounts for why emo...William James and Jesse Prinz demonstrate that bodily feedback mechanisms, not c...

    Similar

    Moral judgments have a seriousness to them and are justified by appeal...77%Moral judgments are grounded in sentiment, not reason.77%Normative reasoning (e.g., reflective equilibrium) can yield conclusio...77%Emotional judgments are motivational76%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: emotion
    View source passageHide passage
    Judgmentalists have tried to address these critiques by clarifying what sorts of judgments emotions are (and some, like Nussbaum and Neu, have explicitly rejected the label of judgmentalism). It has been argued for instance that we should think of judgments as “enclosing a core desire” (Solomon 2003: 105–106), which makes them motivational (e.g., fear encloses the core desire to flee). Such judgments are also “dynamic” and able to “house…the disorderly motions of emotion” (Nussbaum 2001: 45), an
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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