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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42