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 Frege-Geach problem: if moral terms lack objective reference, they cannot retain stable semantic content across embedded contexts like conditionals.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Semantic content doesn't require objective reference; predicates like 'game' or 'bachelor' lack objective essence yet embed coherently.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Non-cognitivist accounts can assign stable truth-conditions to embedded moral claims via recursive compositional semantics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The problem conflates reference-stability with semantic stability; moral attitudes can be consistently compositional without tracking objects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Semantic content requires stable reference across contexts; otherwise 'if X is wrong, then Y' becomes meaningless.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Non-cognitivist accounts (expressivism, prescriptivism) treat moral terms as attitude-expressions, not truth-apt propositions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Attitude-expressions cannot function as antecedents in conditionals without collapsing into incoherence or equivocation.
      ?

      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.