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 norms are normative ideals, not descriptive facts about cognitive capacity, per Kant's distinction between 'ought' and 'can'.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Norms must be grounded in actual cognitive capacities or they become mere wishes; prescribing the impossible abandons normativity as guidance.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Evolutionary psychology shows reasoning evolved to solve specific adaptive problems, suggesting our norms reflect actual design, not transcendent ideals.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The distinction between 'ought' and 'can' presupposes norms can exist independently of capacities, but this requires justification beyond Kant's framework.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Humans frequently violate logical principles (confirmation bias, fallacies), yet we still hold them to rational standards, showing norms differ from capacities.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Normative ideals motivate improvement and self-correction, which would be pointless if rationality were merely descriptive of actual cognitive performance.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Kant's 'ought implies can' principle requires rationality norms to be achievable, but not that they describe what agents typically do achieve.
?
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.