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 If individual S is descended from N, then S is necessarily descended from N.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Modal claims about origin require a principled account of transworld identity, which Kripke's essentialist argument presupposes rather than establishes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without an independent criterion for identifying 'the same individual' across possible worlds, the necessity of origin argument is viciously circular.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Nathan Salmon's work shows that the alleged intuitions supporting origin essentialism fail to distinguish metaphysical necessity from epistemic necessity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Graeme Forbes and others have shown that origin essentialism generates a sorites-style problem: if one gamete could differ slightly, the necessity claim collapses by small steps.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If S could originate from a sperm cell numerically distinct but qualitatively identical to N's, then descent from N is not metaphysically necessary but merely nomologically contingent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A person's parentage is essential to them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Essential properties are necessary properties — they cannot be otherwise.
      ?

      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.