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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that If normative reasons were true propositions, the 'wrong kind of reason' problem (Rabinowicz & Rønnow-Rasmussen) would be unresolvable, since propositions lack the evaluative directionality reasons require.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Propositions can express evaluative content (e.g., 'X is good') without themselves possessing directionality as objects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The wrong-kind-of-reason problem is solvable via propositional content conditions that specify appropriate response-dependence relations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Attributing directionality to reasons risks hypostatizing psychological attitudes, making reasons metaphysically obscure rather than clearer.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Propositions are truth-apt abstract objects with no intrinsic causal or motivational force on agents.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The wrong-kind-of-reason problem requires distinguishing reasons that genuinely justify from those that merely explain belief.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Only entities with evaluative directionality (intrinsic 'for-ness') can solve this distinction without collapsing into psychologism.
      ?

      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