Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Hume's restriction of 'reason' to theoretical representation illicitly excludes practical rationality as a legitimate evaluative standard.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Hume's account of practical reason concerns instrumental rationality, which legitimately evaluates means; goals themselves remain desire-based, not rational.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Calling practical deliberation 'rational' conflates logical consistency with rationality proper; it obscures Hume's actual distinction between reason and passion.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Practical reason can be non-evaluative: reasoning about how to achieve desires needn't presuppose independent evaluative standards beyond desire satisfaction.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Practical reasoning about means-ends relationships involves evaluative standards (efficiency, coherence) distinct from theoretical representation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Excluding practical rationality from evaluative standards leaves no rational basis for criticizing irrational action or incoherent preferences.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Agents demonstrably exercise rational judgment when deliberating about goals, not merely executing pre-given desires mechanically.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42