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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Dancy's holism of reasons holds that the same feature can be a reason for action in one context and against it in another, depending on surrounding features.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If holism is even coherent as a metaethical position, then the claim that discerning relevance in one case 'immediately shows' universal relevance begs the question against particularism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The supporting argument thus presupposes generalism in its logical structure rather than establishing it, rendering the epistemological claim circular.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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