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 Korsgaard's constitutivism holds that reasons arise from the actual practical identity of the agent, including identities constituted by deliberative limitations.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If reasons depend on actual deliberative limitations, then cognitive biases and ignorance would constitute legitimate sources of reasons—a counterintuitive result.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Constitutivism risks making reasons too subjective: two agents with different identities face genuinely different reasons in identical situations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim that practical identity constitutes reasons lacks independent explanation of why identity has normative force—it seems circular.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Agents' reasons must be grounded in something real about them; their actual identities are the most plausible candidates for this grounding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Deliberative limitations are genuine features of agents' practical identities, not mere defects to be ignored in explaining reasons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This view avoids the implausible consequence that agents have reasons they cannot possibly recognize or act upon given their actual capacities.
      ?

      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.