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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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