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
    Normative facts do not and cannot cause anything — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Causation
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→There could be no explanation of the reliability of our substantive normative beliefs if normative facts were mind-independent

    Normative facts do not and cannot cause anything

    CausationTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    CausationTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Skepticism1 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Causation
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    An explanation of belief reliability requires that the facts in question have ca...
    There could be no explanation of the reliability of our substantive normative be...

    Similar

    We cannot have reason to believe in the existence of facts at all.84%Facts cannot be false — there is no such thing as a false fact81%Statements do not correspond to facts81%Normative reasons are facts.81%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: normativity-metaethics
    View source passageHide passage
    Premise (2) of the argument is taken as given by those who advance this argument, but of course some would deny it. Premise (1) might seem strange, since we have substantive knowledge of many kinds of facts that surely are mind-independent, such as facts about the stars. But (1) is intended as a claim specifically about knowledge of normative facts. The claim is that there is something about the normative such that we could not have knowledge of facts of this kind if they were mind-independen

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective