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 Scheffler and Scanlon show that associative obligations derive from the constitutive role relationships play in practical identity, not from voluntary undertakings.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Constitutive role arguments risk circularity: defining identity partly through relationships, then deriving obligations from that identity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.People successfully revise or reject relationships core to their past identity, suggesting identity alone doesn't ground obligation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The theory underspecifies which relationships constitute identity and why, leaving obligation boundaries unclear and contestable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Personal identity is fundamentally constituted by relationships we inhabit, not merely voluntary contracts we sign.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Obligations grounded in identity explain why we feel duties even without explicit consent or ability to exit relationships.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Voluntary undertaking theory fails to account for obligations to family members we didn't choose but fundamentally are.
      ?

      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.