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 Hume's is-ought gap shows that understanding a good's contribution to flourishing cannot by itself generate rational necessity of will toward it.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If an agent rationally desires flourishing as their fundamental end, then facts about what promotes it rationally necessitate pursuit of those means.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The is-ought gap applies to arbitrary values, but flourishing may be constitutive of rational agency itself, not merely externally valued.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Hume's gap concerns deriving ought from pure facts, but understanding something as genuinely good involves practical, not merely theoretical, knowledge.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Descriptive facts about flourishing (what promotes human welfare) are logically distinct from normative claims (what we ought to do).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A person can intellectually acknowledge that X contributes to flourishing yet rationally choose not to pursue X without logical contradiction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without an independent normative premise linking flourishing to obligation, factual premises about goods cannot entail a rational duty of will.
      ?

      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.