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 one can prove on independent grounds that something is an end in itself, one will have an argument for a categorical imperative

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Christine Korsgaard's constitutivism shows that the source of categorical normativity is self-constitution, not the independent metaphysical status of ends.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If categorical imperatives derive from practical identity rather than pre-given ends in themselves, proving something is an end in itself is normatively inert without an account of agency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Parfit's Reasons and Persons demonstrates that facts about what has ultimate value underdetermine which imperatives are genuinely categorical versus strongly agent-relative.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Ends in themselves can ground only hypothetical imperatives if rational agents have divergent fundamental desires that determine what they must pursue.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Schiller and the Romantics argued that human dignity as an end generates imperatives conditional on valuing harmonious self-expression, not unconditional duties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • There is an end in itself if and only if there is a categorical imperative binding on all rational agents as such
      ?

      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.