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
    Requiring natural kind identification as a precondition f... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Treating all analogical arguments as single-case induction is too restrictive and fails as a general analysis

    Requiring natural kind identification as a precondition for valid analogy would falsely invalidate cross-domain analogies central to theoretical reasoning in law and ethics.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Legal reasoning routinely employs analogies across domains (contract law to tort law) without identifying natural kinds, yet produces sound conclusions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Natural kind requirements assume stable essences exist; many analogical domains lack determinate essences yet remain epistemically fruitful.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Ethical analogies between human and animal suffering guide policy despite uncertainty about natural boundaries between species-categories.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Cross-domain analogies without natural kind constraints risk equivocation; legal duties in contract differ structurally from tort duties in ways that matter.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Success in law and ethics may depend on implicit natural kind assumptions practitioners make unconsciously, not on abandoning such requirements entirely.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Weak analogies between domains (like comparing markets to ecosystems) often mislead policy without natural kind constraints providing necessary boundaries.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

    Cross-domain analogies without natural kind constraints risk equivocation; legal...Ethical analogies between human and animal suffering guide policy despite uncert...Legal reasoning routinely employs analogies across domains (contract law to tort...Natural kind requirements assume stable essences exist; many analogical domains ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Success in law and ethics may depend on implicit natural kind assumptions practi...Treating all analogical arguments as single-case induction is too restrictive an...Weak analogies between domains (like comparing markets to ecosystems) often misl...

    Details

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