Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Korsgaard's constitutivism requires that agency is grounded in self-constitution through practical identity, not in any single inalienable desire.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Practical identities seem to require antecedent desires to be chosen and sustained—we desire to be parents, artists, or citizens before constituting those roles.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If agency grounds itself in identity alone, it becomes circular: we choose identities through agency, but agency requires identity. This lacks external justification.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Constitutivism struggles to explain why anyone should care about self-constitution itself rather than simply pursuing pleasure or avoiding pain.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Practical identity (parent, artist, citizen) genuinely motivates action without requiring a fixed underlying desire, explaining moral diversity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Self-constitution through identity avoids the problem of grounding normativity in pre-rational desires, which cannot explain why we ought to care.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Humans continuously revise their identities and commitments, suggesting agency is constitutive rather than derived from static biological drives.
?
How convincing is this?
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.