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
    Ends in themselves can ground only hypothetical imperativ... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→If one can prove on independent grounds that something is an end in itself, one will have an argument for a categorical imperative

    Ends in themselves can ground only hypothetical imperatives if rational agents have divergent fundamental desires that determine what they must pursue.

    ?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.Rational agents with conflicting desires (e.g., autonomy vs. security) cannot all pursue identical ends without compromise.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If ends-in-themselves were categorical imperatives, they would bind all rational agents identically regardless of their desires.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Since empirically rational agents pursue divergent paths, ends-in-themselves can only obligate conditionally on what agents desire.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Ends-in-themselves (like human dignity) may generate categorical imperatives precisely by constraining which desires are rationally permissible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Divergent desires don't prove absence of categorical imperatives; they may reflect failures of rationality or moral understanding, not legitimacy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim conflates 'agents pursue different things' with 'nothing can obligate all agents equally,' which doesn't logically follow.
      ?

      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

    Virtue Ethics1 linkedMoral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    Divergent desires don't prove absence of categorical imperatives; they may refle...Ends-in-themselves (like human dignity) may generate categorical imperatives pre...If ends-in-themselves were categorical imperatives, they would bind all rational...If one can prove on independent grounds that something is an end in itself, one ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Rational agents with conflicting desires (e.g., autonomy vs. security) cannot al...Since empirically rational agents pursue divergent paths, ends-in-themselves can...The claim conflates 'agents pursue different things' with 'nothing can obligate ...

    Details

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