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 Generalism about reasons is not supported by the demand that differing valences of a feature across cases must be explained.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Particularists accept that differing valences of a feature across cases require explanation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The required explanations appeal to contextual differences between cases, not to universal principles governing how features function as reasons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Accepting the explanatory demand is therefore compatible with particularism about reasons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Jonathan Dancy's 'holism about reasons' shows a feature's valence depends on surrounding features, not on any standalone universal principle.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If holism is true, explanations of valence-shifts cite local enabling/disabling conditions, making appeal to exceptionless generalizations explanatorily idle.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An explanation is idle when removing it leaves the explanandum equally well accounted for, so generalism earns no support from the explanatory demand.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's rule-following considerations show that citing a rule does not itself settle how it applies without further interpretive context.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If rules cannot self-apply, then positing universal principles governing reason-valence shifts the explanatory burden rather than discharging it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The explanatory demand is therefore satisfied by contextual narrative accounts without requiring the kind of exceptionless principles generalism posits.
      ?

      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.