Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that If a theory appeals to interests constitutive of human flourishing as such, P2's objection that no interest is necessarily universal does not apply.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
The concept of 'constitutive of human flourishing' is itself contestable across cultures and worldviews, not a neutral biological fact.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Claiming certain interests are constitutive merely relocates the disagreement: societies still disagree fundamentally about what flourishing requires.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Even universal capacities (reason, sociality) manifest in radically different forms across cultures, undermining claims about universal constitutive interests.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Human flourishing has a biological basis shared across all humans, making certain interests (health, cognition, social connection) genuinely universal.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Distinguishing between contingent preferences and constitutive interests allows theories to acknowledge cultural variation while grounding universality in human nature.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If interests are constitutive of flourishing rather than merely desired, they escape the objection that no preference is universally held.
?
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.