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 Good cannot be analysed in naturalistic terms

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The open question argument conflates epistemic separability with metaphysical non-identity, as Kripke's work on a posteriori necessity demonstrates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Natural properties like H2O and water are genuinely identical despite 'Is water H2O?' remaining an open question prior to scientific discovery.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Moral terms like 'good' may similarly pick out natural properties through a posteriori identification rather than analytic definition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The tautology objection assumes that definitional reduction exhausts the only form naturalistic analysis can take.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Cornell Realists like Sturgeon and Boyd argue 'good' refers to natural properties via causal-functional role, not synonymous definition, avoiding tautology entirely.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Analysing good in naturalistic terms turns substantive moral claims into empty tautologies
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.For example, analysing good as pleasure turns 'pleasure is good' into the tautology 'pleasure is pleasure'
      ?

      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.