Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Rationality admits of degrees and domains, so violating a global principle does not entail that the agent's action or judgment is irrational simpliciter.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
If rationality has no global standards, we lose meaningful grounds to distinguish rational from irrational agents altogether.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Domain-specific reasoning ultimately relies on shared logical principles; violating them anywhere suggests systematic irrationality.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Allowing rationality 'in degrees' risks making the concept too permissive, excusing contradictions we normally call irrational.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Humans demonstrate domain-specific expertise: a physicist may be rational in physics but irrational about nutrition without being irrational simpliciter.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Rational agents can reasonably prioritize competing values differently across contexts without violating unified rationality standards.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
One logical violation in a narrow domain doesn't undermine rationality across all other domains where the agent reasons soundly.
?
How convincing is this?
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.