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 the boundaries of self are indeterminate, the inference from self-interest to necessarily shared flourishing smuggles in a substantive social ontology that requires independent justification.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Indeterminacy of boundaries doesn't prevent functional reasoning about interests; practical deliberation works despite metaphysical vagueness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Self-interest naturally extends to interdependent others regardless of boundary precision, since physical causation and cooperation are empirically observable facts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim conflates epistemological indeterminacy (we can't precisely define boundaries) with ontological absence (boundaries don't matter), which are distinct problems.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Indeterminate self-boundaries make it unclear where my interests end and others' begin, so assuming self-interest naturally leads to shared flourishing begs the question.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Claims about necessary social interdependence require explicit argument about ontology, not derivation from indeterminate selfhood alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without justifying what counts as 'self' versus 'other', linking self-interest to collective good smuggles in undefended metaphysical assumptions.
      ?

      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.