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
    No choice between incomparable bearers of value is intell... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    No choice between incomparable bearers of value is intelligible in the ways suggested by Raz or Finnis.

    ConsequentialismModality & Possibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Agents can express their practical identity through choice without those choices requiring antecedent reason-based justification, as Christine Korsgaard's constitutivism demonstrates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When values are genuinely incomparable, a choice that expresses who the agent is constitutes a self-determining act, not a passive event that merely 'happens' to the agent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Intelligibility of choice does not require reason-based grounding but can be secured by narrative coherence with the agent's prior commitments, as MacIntyre's virtue ethics tradition establishes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Ruth Chang's 'on a par' relation shows that incomparable options can be joined by a positive evaluative relation that is neither better-than, worse-than, nor equal, making volitive engagement rational without requiring ranked reasons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Because parity is a genuine fourth value relation, an agent's will-based resolution of a choice between parity-related options is not arbitrary but tracks a real evaluative structure that Raz's framework systematically ignores.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Unless grounded in an adequate reason, a decision to go one way rather than another will be something that happened to the agent rather than something the agent did, and hence be unintelligible to the agent herself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When an agent has no more reason to choose one alternative over another, the choice being settled by the agent's wants requires those wants to be grounded in reasons for the choice to be intelligible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Because the agent has no more reason to choose one alternative over another initially, the reasons grounding the agent's wants must only become available after the initially relevant reasons are exhausted.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Topics

    Modality & PossibilityConsequentialism

    Connections

    3 topics

    Moral Responsibility4 linkedFree Will & Foreknowledge3 linked

    Related

    Agents can express their practical identity through choice without those choices...Because parity is a genuine fourth value relation, an agent's will-based resolut...Because the agent has no more reason to choose one alternative over another init...Intelligibility of choice does not require reason-based grounding but can be sec...
    +5 moreShow less
    It is implausible that reasons grounding an agent's wants become available only ...

    Similar

    Maximization permits justified choice between incomparable alternative...76%Monism can account for rational regret in value choice by appealing to...75%Rational choice requires that the chosen action be regarded as good in...75%The only explanation for W1 being preferable to W2 (given equal pleasu...74%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: value-incommensurable
    View source passageHide passage
    Donald Regan challenges this view. According to Regan, unless grounded in an adequate reason, “a decision to go one way rather than another will be something that happened to the agent rather than something she did” and hence be unintelligible to the agent herself (1997, 144). Suppose the agent has no more reason to choose one alternative over another and the choice, as suggested above, is settled by her wants. On Regan’s view, if the agent’s choice is to be intelligible to her, her wants must b
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Ruth Chang's 'on a par' relation shows that incomparable options can be joined b...
    Unless grounded in an adequate reason, a decision to go one way rather than anot...
    When an agent has no more reason to choose one alternative over another, the cho...
    When values are genuinely incomparable, a choice that expresses who the agent is...
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit