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
    Russell's theory of how 'good' functions is radically inc... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Russell's theory of how 'good' functions is radically incomplete

    Philosophy of LanguageVirtue Ethics
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Russell's emotivist account of 'good' cannot explain the validity of mixed inference forms like Geach's 'If hurting people is bad, getting children to hurt people is bad'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Valid inferences require that terms retain stable semantic content across both asserted and unasserted contexts, which Russell's optative rendering systematically destroys.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Geach's Frege-point demonstration that moral terms in conditionals cannot be mere expressions of attitude is a structural refutation, not merely an extensional counterexample.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Moral predicates embedded in propositional attitude reports like 'John believes that cruelty is bad' require truth-apt content that tracks what John believes, not the speaker's current pro-attitude.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Russell's theory entails that 'John believes cruelty is bad' would misreport John's mental state by substituting the speaker's optative for John's doxastic content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Hare's recognition that prescriptivism must preserve logical entailments between moral sentences concedes precisely the inferential embedding problem Russell's theory cannot resolve.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Russell's theory can only account for cases where 'X is good' is used by itself to make an assertion
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Russell's theory cannot account for the numerous cases where 'X is good' occurs unasserted as a component of a larger sentence
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The sentence 'it is always good to contemplate beautiful works of art' cannot generally be construed as an optative when it occurs in an embedded context
      ?

      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

    Philosophy of LanguageVirtue Ethics

    Connections

    1 topic

    Aesthetics1 linked

    Related

    Geach's Frege-point demonstration that moral terms in conditionals cannot be mer...Hare's recognition that prescriptivism must preserve logical entailments between...Moral predicates embedded in propositional attitude reports like 'John believes ...Russell's emotivist account of 'good' cannot explain the validity of mixed infer...
    +5 moreShow less
    Russell's theory can only account for cases where 'X is good' is used by itself ...Russell's theory cannot account for the numerous cases where 'X is good' occurs ...Russell's theory entails that 'John believes cruelty is bad' would misreport Joh...The sentence 'it is always good to contemplate beautiful works of art' cannot ge...Valid inferences require that terms retain stable semantic content across both a...

    Similar

    Russell's original theory only accounts for asserted uses of 'X is goo...76%Russell's theory cannot account for the numerous cases where 'X is goo...75%Russell's theory can only account for cases where 'X is good' is used ...75%A revised theory would need to explain how 'X is good' is meaningful i...74%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: russell-moral
    View source passageHide passage
    The person who accepts this argument clearly does not wish that everyone should always desire to contemplate beautiful works of art. But she subscribes to premise (2) nonetheless. Thus the sentence “it is always good to contemplate beautiful works of art”, cannot generally be construed as an optative when it occurs in an embedded context (that is when it occurs as a sub-sentence within a larger, more complex sentence). This is already a very damaging objection to Russell’s theory of how “good” f
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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