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
    Questions about normative reasons bear directly on the ju... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Questions about normative reasons bear directly on the justification of agents, as distinct from the justification of their actions.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The justification of an action concerns whether the facts made it right to do.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The justification of an agent concerns motivating reasons and the agent's epistemic state.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An agent may be justified or excused even when the action itself is not justified.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.On a unified reasons-based account (Scanlon, Parfit), the same normative reasons that justify actions also constitute the standards by which agents are assessed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If agent-justification is grounded in the very normative reasons that justify actions, the claimed distinction collapses into a difference of application, not kind.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's moral theory holds that an agent is justified only when acting from the moral law, making agent-justification inseparable from whether the action itself was morally required.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Where agent-justification necessarily tracks the normative status of the action, normative reasons cannot bear distinctively on one without equally bearing on the other.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    2 topics

    Justice & Punishment1 linkedForgiveness & Mercy1 linked

    Related

    An agent may be justified or excused even when the action itself is not justifie...If agent-justification is grounded in the very normative reasons that justify ac...Kant's moral theory holds that an agent is justified only when acting from the m...On a unified reasons-based account (Scanlon, Parfit), the same normative reasons...
    +3 moreShow less
    The justification of an action concerns whether the facts made it right to do.The justification of an agent concerns motivating reasons and the agent's episte...Where agent-justification necessarily tracks the normative status of the action,...

    Similar

    Moral normativity has an essential connection to the motivations of ag...86%A consideration can be a normative reason for an agent only if it is p...85%Appeals to normative facts cannot explain how those facts count as rea...84%Practical reasons are normative, not merely explanatory.83%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: reasons-just-vs-expl
    View source passageHide passage
    There are several moves that an opponent of perspectivism can make in response here. She can concede that an agent who acts according to his epistemic perspective but guided by a false belief acts rationally, but deny that acting rationally requires that the agent act for normative reasons. Instead, the objectivist may say, acting rationally only requires acting in a way that is consistent with one’s beliefs, so long as these are themselves rational. This response could rely on, e.g., Derek Parf
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit