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 Monism cannot ground rational conflict in value choice.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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