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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Kin altruism, reciprocity norms, and harm-aversion intuitions map onto inclusive fitness benefits, confirming a purely selective explanation with no remainder requiring moral facts.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Evolutionary explanation of moral belief origin doesn't entail those beliefs lack truth-conditions or correspondence to moral facts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Mapping onto fitness benefits shows *why* we believe moral claims, not whether universal moral principles (e.g., fairness) exist independently.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Some moral convictions (equality of distant strangers, animal suffering) diverge from fitness logic, requiring explanation beyond selection alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Observable moral intuitions (kin preference, reciprocity) precisely track inclusive fitness payoffs across diverse cultures and species.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Explaining moral intuitions via evolution eliminates need for moral realism; selection pressure suffices as complete causal account.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.No moral facts are required to predict or explain the content and distribution of actual human ethical judgments.
      ?

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42