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 semantic obligations are merely prima facie, they pres... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→It is not an objection to meaning-engendered (ME) normativity that there are situations in which "green" means green for S without S being obligated to apply "green" only to green objects.

    If semantic obligations are merely prima facie, they presuppose a normative framework prior to meaning that determines when they are overridden.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Prima facie obligations require criteria for when they yield to competing demands, which cannot be semantic rules themselves.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Language use presupposes shared norms about truth, relevance, and cooperation that ground semantic obligations hierarchically.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Exceptions to semantic rules (metaphor, irony, context-shifting) demonstrate a meta-level evaluative framework determining applicability.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Semantic obligations could be prima facie without presupposing external norms—meaning itself might generate defeasible constraints.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The regress objection (normative frameworks requiring prior frameworks) equally applies to the claim's own normative framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Contextual override of semantic norms can be explained through semantic flexibility itself, not hierarchical meta-frameworks.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Philosophy of Language1 linkedMoral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    Contextual override of semantic norms can be explained through semantic flexibil...Exceptions to semantic rules (metaphor, irony, context-shifting) demonstrate a m...It is not an objection to meaning-engendered (ME) normativity that there are sit...Language use presupposes shared norms about truth, relevance, and cooperation th...
    +3 moreShow less
    Prima facie obligations require criteria for when they yield to competing demand...Semantic obligations could be prima facie without presupposing external norms—me...The regress objection (normative frameworks requiring prior frameworks) equally ...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit