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 Rational beings ought to choose in accordance with what will in fact happen, when they can know what that will be.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Moral responsibility requires that agents could have chosen otherwise, making outcome-conforming choice a criterion of rationality incoherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kant's categorical imperative grounds rational choice in universalizable maxims, not in alignment with actual outcomes, which are contingent and unknowable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If rational choice is defined by conformity to what will happen, deliberation becomes superfluous, undermining the very agency that makes choice rational.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aristotle's account of practical wisdom (phronesis) locates rational choice in reasoned deliberation about contingent particulars, not foreknowledge of fixed outcomes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Deliberation, as Aristotle argues in Nicomachean Ethics III, is only possible about what is genuinely open, so tying rationality to fixed futures collapses practical reason into fatalism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Rational beings are parts of rational nature.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Choosing in accordance with what will actually happen is wholly good and rational.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.What will actually happen is fully knowable only to gods, not to humans.
      ?

      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.