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 obligations entail reasons for action

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.An agent can be morally blameworthy for an action even if they lacked any motivating reason to act otherwise, as Kant's categorical imperative binds regardless of desire.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Blame tracks moral violations of objective duties, not the presence of subjective reasons internal to the agent's motivational set.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the inference from warranted blame to the agent having had reasons conflates the normative force of obligations with the internalist conditions Williams requires for reasons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Amoralists, as described by Mackie and later Parfit, can coherently understand moral obligations while remaining entirely unmotivated by them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If amoralists face genuine moral obligations yet lack any corresponding reason grounded in their motivational set, obligations do not entail reasons for all agents.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The supporting argument's premise that blame requires the judgment that the agent had reasons smuggles in a contested internalist assumption about reasons that the amoralist case directly refutes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.When an agent does something morally wrong, blame of that agent is warranted
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Blame involves the judgment that the agent had reasons not to do what the agent did
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Blame is unwarranted when the judgment that the agent had reasons is unwarranted
      ?

      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.