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 Indexing 'ought' to different ends fails as an analysis of moral obligation

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If 'ought' statements are indexed to the agent's own ends, then 'We ought to bomb London' (Nazi) and 'Nobody ever ought to bomb anything' (pacifist) would not contradict one another
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.It is evident that those two statements do contradict one another
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An analysis of 'ought' that eliminates genuine contradiction between such statements cannot be correct
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Indexical analyses of normative terms collapse the distinction Kant draws between hypothetical and categorical imperatives, which tracks a real semantic difference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'ought' were always indexed to contingent ends, moral discourse would be reducible to instrumental rationality, yet Moore's open question argument shows 'good' resists such naturalistic reduction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Since 'ought' in moral contexts shares the same categorical, non-hypothetical force Moore and Kant identify, indexing it to variable ends misrepresents its semantic structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Frege's compositionality principle requires that terms contribute stable semantic content across contexts for inference to be truth-preserving.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'ought' shifts its reference with each agent's ends, the valid inference from 'You ought to keep promises' and 'This is a promise' to 'You ought to keep this promise' breaks down.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A semantic analysis that undermines the validity of basic deontic inferences recognized across Hare's prescriptivism and standard deontic logic must be rejected as inadequate.
      ?

      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.