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 Kant's contradiction in conception and contradiction in will tests of the formula of universal law refute Hume's argument that passions, volitions, and actions cannot be evaluated as reasonable or unreasonable.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Kant's formula of universal law provides two tests — contradiction in conception and contradiction in will — for evaluating the rationality of maxims.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.These tests apply rational evaluation to volitions and intended actions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If volitions and actions can be rationally evaluated via these tests, then Hume's claim that they cannot be contrary to reason is false.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hume's own account of calm passions admits that some motivational states are responsive to rational reflection and correction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If even Humean passions admit degrees of rational responsiveness, Kant's tests show volitions fall within reason's evaluative scope.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Kant's contradiction in will test specifically targets the rational incoherence of willing universal exceptions, a normative standard Hume's fork cannot exclude.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Christine Korsgaard's constitutivism demonstrates that volitions presuppose a commitment to rational self-governance, making them internally assessable by reason.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A maxim that cannot be universalized without contradiction fails the very standard of coherence that constitutes rational agency, not merely an external moral criterion.
      ?

      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.