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
    Substantive moral realism fails to respond to the skeptic... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Substantive moral realism fails to respond to the skeptical challenge that there are no reasons to be moral.

    Moral ResponsibilitySkepticism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    0 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Substantive moral realism simply assumes the existence of objective standards for morality without offering a rational basis for them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The skeptic denies that such objective moral standards exist.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An account that merely assumes what the skeptic denies cannot count as a response to skepticism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilitySkepticism

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    An account that merely assumes what the skeptic denies cannot count as a respons...Substantive moral realism simply assumes the existence of objective standards fo...The skeptic denies that such objective moral standards exist.

    Similar

    Substantive moral realism cannot show why we really ought to do as mor...90%Substantive moral realism simply assumes the existence of objective st...88%Modal realism entails that there are no moral requirements.88%Substantive moral realism fails as an account of the authority of mora...86%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: constructivism-metaethics
    View source passageHide passage
    Korsgaard’s case for constructivism parallels Kant’s argument for the autonomy of practical reason, as Rawls reconstructs it. It starts by objecting that substantive realism fails to respond to the skeptical challenge that there really are no reasons to be moral. This is because realism simply assumes the existence of objective standards for morality without offering a rational basis for them; hence the realist affirms what the skeptic denies. As a consequence, the realist also fails to show why
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    1 (0 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit