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 Tymoczko's argument is neutral on the relationship bet... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Tymoczko and Brueckner are also committed to content compatibilism

    If Tymoczko's argument is neutral on the relationship between wide and narrow content, it does not entail content compatibilism as a commitment.

    ?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.Neutrality on wide/narrow content means Tymoczko's argument doesn't presuppose either framework, so it cannot depend on commitments either entails.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Content compatibilism requires taking a specific stance on how wide and narrow content relate; neutral arguments avoid such substantive metaphysical positions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An argument entails a commitment only if rejecting that commitment would undermine the argument's logical structure or premises.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Neutrality on wide/narrow content may be merely epistemic silence, not metaphysical neutrality—the argument could still presuppose compatibilism implicitly.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Many arguments entail commitments indirectly: accepting Tymoczko's conclusion might rationally require accepting compatibilism even if unstated.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If Tymoczko's argument succeeds only given compatibilism's truth, then it functionally depends on that commitment despite appearing neutral.
      ?

      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

    Consciousness & Mind1 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

    An argument entails a commitment only if rejecting that commitment would undermi...Content compatibilism requires taking a specific stance on how wide and narrow c...If Tymoczko's argument succeeds only given compatibilism's truth, then it functi...Many arguments entail commitments indirectly: accepting Tymoczko's conclusion mi...
    +3 moreShow less
    Neutrality on wide/narrow content may be merely epistemic silence, not metaphysi...Neutrality on wide/narrow content means Tymoczko's argument doesn't presuppose e...Tymoczko and Brueckner are also committed to content compatibilism

    Details

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