If the standard account of particular relevance were defe... — Carmelics

History Edit See Inverse

If the standard account of particular relevance were defensible, generalists would have an epistemological basis for claiming that relevance is always general.

Moral Responsibility Truth & Knowledge

?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.On the standard account, a feature is relevant in a case if and only if, were it the only relevant feature, it would decide the issue.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.This conditional holds on every further occurrence of the feature.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.Therefore, discerning that a feature matters in one case would immediately show that it makes the same difference on every occurrence.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reasons Against

2 perspectives

Reason against 1 of 2

?

1.The standard account's conditional ('were it the only relevant feature') is never instantiated, since real cases always contain multiple features.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.A counterfactual that is never actually satisfied cannot ground knowledge of how a feature behaves across real, multi-featured cases.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.Therefore, even if the conditional holds universally in the abstract, it provides no epistemological basis for generalizing relevance across actual moral situations.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reason against 2 of 2

?

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.