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 motivationally external considerations could genuinely be practical reasons for an agent.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.For external reasons to exist, it must be possible that external reasons beliefs are true.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.For an external reasons belief to be true, the consideration R must actually explain the agent's action under conditions of sound deliberation, independently of the agent's motivational set.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Nothing can be explanatory of an agent's action independently of the contents of the agent's motivational set — that is, independently of the agent's desires and dispositions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Practical rationality is constitutively tied to an agent's subjective motivational set, as Williams argues in 'Internal and External Reasons' (1981).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A reason that cannot connect to any element of S via sound deliberation fails the minimal condition for action-guiding normativity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Action-guiding normativity requires that a consideration can, at minimum dispositionally, move the agent — which external reasons by definition cannot guarantee.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Humean instrumentalism, defended by Williams and Foot, establishes that desires or pro-attitudes are the only ultimate sources of practical justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a consideration R is motivationally inert for agent A even under idealized deliberation, R cannot figure in any valid practical syllogism for A.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Kantian attempts to ground external reasons in pure practical reason still require motivational uptake via respect for law, confirming the motivational-set dependency.
      ?

      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.