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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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