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 Practical identities can be grounded in constitutive attachments (Bernard Williams) that derive their normative force from emotional depth, not rational endorsement.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Emotional depth alone cannot justify obligations; Nazi operatives felt intense attachment to ideology, yet this didn't ground legitimate identity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If normativity derives only from emotional depth, we lose grounds to critique harmful attachments or argue for personal transformation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Many constitutive attachments survive precisely because we reflectively endorse them; Williams conflates descriptive psychology with normative grounding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Emotional attachments often motivate action more reliably than abstract rational principles, suggesting they genuinely ground identity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Parent-child bonds demonstrate that deep attachments create binding obligations without requiring rational reflection or endorsement.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Requiring rational endorsement for identity ignores how formative experiences precede and shape our capacity for rational thought itself.
      ?

      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.