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
    Ross's considered view does not hold that self-evident mo... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Ross's considered view does not hold that self-evident moral propositions cannot be proved.

    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.Ross states in a 1927 article that 'the fact that something can be inferred does not prove that it cannot be seen intuitively.'
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This statement was written three years before The Right and the Good and explicitly allows for inference alongside intuition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Ross's stronger claims elsewhere that self-evident propositions cannot receive proof by argument do not appear to reflect his settled position.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.In The Right and the Good (1930), Ross explicitly states that self-evident propositions 'cannot be proved by any more fundamental principle'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A pre-publication journal article cannot override the settled position expressed in Ross's primary systematic work.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The 1927 remark addresses epistemological compatibility of inference and intuition, not the provability of self-evident moral propositions specifically.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The classical intuitionist tradition from Sidgwick through Moore treats self-evidence and proof as mutually exclusive epistemic categories.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Ross's intuitionism is situated within this tradition, and his considered view must be interpreted against its background assumptions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Selecting an isolated pre-systematic remark to define Ross's 'considered view' commits the genetic fallacy by privileging earlier formulations over mature doctrine.
      ?

      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

    Related

    A pre-publication journal article cannot override the settled position expressed...In The Right and the Good (1930), Ross explicitly states that self-evident propo...Ross states in a 1927 article that 'the fact that something can be inferred does...Ross's intuitionism is situated within this tradition, and his considered view m...
    +5 moreShow less
    Ross's stronger claims elsewhere that self-evident propositions cannot receive p...Selecting an isolated pre-systematic remark to define Ross's 'considered view' c...The 1927 remark addresses epistemological compatibility of inference and intuiti...The classical intuitionist tradition from Sidgwick through Moore treats self-evi...This statement was written three years before The Right and the Good and explici...

    Similar

    Self-evident propositions are not incapable of proof; their being self...85%A Rossian self-evident moral proposition is evident only to those with...85%The existence of self-evident moral propositions is called into questi...84%Ross's stronger claims elsewhere that self-evident propositions cannot...84%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: intuitionism-ethics
    View source passageHide passage
    Price claims that self-evident truths are “incapable of proof” (1758/1969, 160).[4] Most classical intuitionists endorse this view, although Ross is arguably an exception. This is easily missed, for he states at one point that self-evident moral propositions “cannot be proved, but … just as certainly need no proof” (1930/2002, 30). But elsewhere in The Right and the Good he makes only the more restricted claim that such propositions do not need any proof,[5] and despite the fact that he
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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