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 Sidgwick argued that the 'dualism of practical reason' reveals that self-interest and universal benevolence issue irreconcilable rational demands.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The demands only appear irreconcilable because Sidgwick conflates rational egoism with rational self-interest; prudence permits benevolence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Evolutionary and contractarian arguments show that impartial rules often serve self-interest rationally, dissolving the purported conflict.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the demands are truly irreconcilable, practical reason collapses—but agents successfully navigate both, suggesting Sidgwick's framing errs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Rationality requires consistency, but self-interest and impartial benevolence can demand opposite actions in resource allocation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.No higher-order principle derives from reason alone that adjudicates between agent-centered and impartial rational requirements.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Sidgwick's dualism identifies a genuine logical gap that empiricist ethics cannot resolve through naturalistic reduction.
      ?

      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.