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
    If moral predicates were reducible to natural properties ... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Moral knowledge cannot be based solely on experience of the natural world.

    If moral predicates were reducible to natural properties discoverable through experience, the question 'this maximizes pleasure, but is it good?' would be as trivially closed as 'this is a bachelor, but is it unmarried?'

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Key Terms

    Metaethics(as the general field this statement appears in)
    The branch of philosophy that asks questions about morality itself—like whether moral truths actually exist, or what makes something right or wrong.
    Moral predicates(as used in ethics)
    Words or concepts we use to describe whether something is right, wrong, good, or bad (like 'wrongness' or 'rightness').
    Reducible to(as used in philosophy generally)
    Able to be broken down into or explained using simpler parts; when something complicated can be shown to just be made of something simpler.
    discoverable through experience(in epistemology)
    Something you can find out or learn about by observing the world and what happens in it, rather than just thinking about it abstractly.
    natural properties

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Explore a random proposition
    Start fresh with something unrelated.
    (Used to contrast with moral properties in both Kant's and Moore's arguments)
    Properties that are known through experience (empirically accessible properties)
    the is-ought problem(the core issue this statement is addressing)
    The philosophical puzzle that you can't automatically jump from describing how something *is* in the world to saying how it *ought* to be morally—these seem like different kinds of statements.
    trivially closed(in logic and philosophy of language)
    A question that has an obvious, boring answer that doesn't need any further discussion—it's settled by definition alone.

    Connections

    1 linked claim · 2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedSkepticism1 linked
    Moral knowledge cannot be based solely on experience of the natural world.

    Related

    Moral knowledge cannot be based solely on experience of the natural world.

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective