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
    Monism cannot ground rational conflict in value choice. — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Monism cannot ground rational conflict in value choice.

    ConsequentialismMoral Responsibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rational conflict requires that each option realizes a genuine value the other fails to realize, not merely a lesser degree of the same value.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.On monism, choosing between options is like choosing between amounts of money—the larger sum simply wins, generating no genuine conflict.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Bernard Williams's notion of agent-regret shows that genuine moral residue after choice requires that something of independent value was sacrificed, which monism structurally cannot accommodate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Ruth Chang's work on 'on a par' options demonstrates that value comparisons can be neither better, worse, nor equal, a logical space monism collapses by reducing all comparisons to a single ordinal scale.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If all values reduce to one dimension, every choice is fully determined by which option scores higher, leaving no rational basis for the hesitation or remainder that characterizes genuine value conflict.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If monism is true, one option is simply better than another along a single value dimension.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The better option lacks nothing that would be made good by the lesser option.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If there is no relevant difference between options except that one is better, there is no basis for rational conflict or regret.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityConsequentialism

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedModality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    Bernard Williams's notion of agent-regret shows that genuine moral residue after...If all values reduce to one dimension, every choice is fully determined by which...If monism is true, one option is simply better than another along a single value...If there is no relevant difference between options except that one is better, th...
    +4 moreShow less
    On monism, choosing between options is like choosing between amounts of money—th...Rational conflict requires that each option realizes a genuine value the other f...Ruth Chang's work on 'on a par' options demonstrates that value comparisons can ...

    Similar

    Maximization deems X, Y, and Z rationally eligible in cases of value c...81%Some conflicts arise from irrationality rather than from the structure...81%Monism can account for rational regret in value choice by appealing to...78%If there is no relevant difference between options except that one is ...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: value-pluralism
    View source passageHide passage
    One way for monists to make sense of complexity in value choice is to point out that there are different bearers of value, and this makes a big difference to the experience of choice. (See Hurka, 1996; Schaber, 1999; Klocksiem 2011). Here is the challenge to monism in Michael Stocker’s words (Stocker, 1990, p. 272): “[if monism is true] there is no ground for rational conflict because the better option lacks nothing that would be made good by the lesser.” In other words, there are no relevant di
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    The better option lacks nothing that would be made good by the lesser option.
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit