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 Moral conclusions in Beauchamp and Childress's approach are justified through both coherence and foundationalism

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Foundationalism requires that basic beliefs justify others without themselves requiring justification from higher-order beliefs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Beauchamp and Childress explicitly allow the common morality principles to be revised under pressure from considered judgments via reflective equilibrium.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A foundation that is revisable by what it is supposed to ground is not a genuine epistemic foundation but a coherentist node in a network.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wide reflective equilibrium, as Rawls and Daniels formulated it, is a purely coherentist method that makes no appeal to self-evident or non-inferentially justified moral truths.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Invoking both foundationalism and coherentism as simultaneous justificatory bases generates a structural contradiction, since coherentism denies that any belief has privileged non-inferential warrant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The resulting account is not a genuine hybrid but rather an unstable conflation that Sosa and BonJour's internalism/externalism debates show cannot be resolved by simply asserting both frameworks apply.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Moral conclusions are connected to the principles of the common morality, which serves as the foundationalist aspect of the account
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Moral conclusions are also justified through coherence via the method of wide reflective equilibrium
      ?

      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.