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 the realization of the highest good is not possible, t... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    If the realization of the highest good is not possible, then we cannot rationally promote the highest good as an end

    Modality & PossibilityMoral Responsibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.For promotion of an end to be rational, the end must be one that we can rationally view as possible
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If an end is not possible, it cannot be made sense of as an end at all
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's own regulative use of ideas permits rational pursuit of ends whose full realization transcends possible experience.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The highest good functions as a regulative ideal directing moral striving, not a constitutive goal requiring guaranteed metaphysical achievability.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Rational promotion of an end requires only that progress toward it is conceivable, not that its complete realization is theoretically demonstrable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Sisyphean and tragic moral traditions (e.g., Camus, Bernard Williams) hold that an agent can be rationally and morally committed to ends known to be unrealizable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The rationality of promoting an end is grounded in its intrinsic moral worth, not in the probability or possibility of its achievement.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityModality & Possibility

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge1 linked

    Related

    For promotion of an end to be rational, the end must be one that we can rational...If an end is not possible, it cannot be made sense of as an end at allKant's own regulative use of ideas permits rational pursuit of ends whose full r...Rational promotion of an end requires only that progress toward it is conceivabl...
    +3 moreShow less
    Sisyphean and tragic moral traditions (e.g., Camus, Bernard Williams) hold that ...The highest good functions as a regulative ideal directing moral striving, not a...The rationality of promoting an end is grounded in its intrinsic moral worth, no...

    Similar

    Our duty to promote the highest good gives rise only to a need of reas...83%For promotion of an end to be rational, the end must be one that we ca...80%We have no obligation to achieve the Kantian highest good, but only to...77%We must believe the realization of any morally imposed end to be possi...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: kant-hume-morality
    View source passageHide passage
    The relation between God and the highest good is the basis of Kant’s main argument for belief in God. (See Wood 1970.) The argument, most clearly articulated in the Critique of Practical Reason, goes like this (CPrR 5:110–14, 124–46). The moral law issues categorical demands through each agent’s own reason. If the moral law sets forth an end for us to promote, we must promote it. For our promotion of this end to be rational, the end must be one that we can rationally view as possible for us to p
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit