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
    If motivating reasons were facts and putative facts, then... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→If motivating reasons were facts (or putative facts), then we can, and sometimes do, act for a good reason.

    If motivating reasons were facts and putative facts, then some of the reasons for which we act would be facts.

    Moral ResponsibilityTruth & Knowledge
    ?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.

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    If motivating reasons were facts (or putative facts), then we can, and sometimes...To act for a good reason, one must act for a reason that is or could be a fact.

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Moral Responsibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    If motivating reasons were facts (or putative facts), then we can, and...97%Explanatory reasons were not distinguished from motivating reasons.87%Psychologism about motivating reasons is false85%Psychologism about motivating reasons entails that we can never act fo...83%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: reasons-just-vs-expl
    View source passageHide passage
    Dancy’s charge against psychologism about motivating reasons is that it fails to meet the constraint because, if psychologism is right, we can never act for a good reason. Why? In order to act for a good reason, we need to act for a reason that is or could be a fact. However, according to psychologism, motivating reasons are mental states. If so, the reasons for which we act are mental states, and not facts. If, by contrast, motivating reasons were, say facts and putative facts, then some of the

    Details

    Type
    premise
    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