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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Rowe's conclusion Q (that all further morally relevant properties will lack property J) may not be justified even if a conclusion about the next case would be justified.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Rowe needs conclusion (1), which asserts that all further morally relevant properties will lack property J.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A conclusion about all further cases is much stronger than a conclusion about the next case.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.In some circumstances a conclusion about the next case is justified, but a conclusion about all further cases is not.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Problem of Evil
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.