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
    The argument as it stands provides no principled basis fo... — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The argument from self-valuation fails to avoid the Satanic parallel and is therefore problematic as it stands.

    The argument as it stands provides no principled basis for distinguishing the human case from the Satanic case.

    Moral ResponsibilityVirtue Ethics
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityVirtue Ethics

    Connections

    2 topics

    Insubordination to God1 linked

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Moral Responsibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Divine Attributes
    1 linked

    Related

    If the argument from self-valuation entitles humans to regard their humanity or ...Satan's devilish nature is no less central to Satan's nature than humanity is to...The Satanic parallel is not a case of self-conceit, because Satan would be valui...The argument from self-valuation fails to avoid the Satanic parallel and is ther...

    Similar

    The Manipulation argument's second premise holds that there is no rele...79%The argument of Groundwork II does not appear to be merely an analytic...77%Singer argues there is no morally relevant difference between the pond...77%Bratman's argument defeats the Simple View76%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: transcendental-arguments
    View source passageHide passage
    There are some dangers in this argument, however. One, which Korsgaard considers, is that it might lead to ‘self-conceit’ (Korsgaard 1998: 54. Cf. also Korsgaard 1996: 249–50): that is, I might conclude from this that I am supremely valuable, simply as Bob Stern, which could obviously then get in the way of my ethical treatment of others. But, this worry might be lessened by the thought that while the argument gets me to see that I must find something valuable about me, it need not be anything a

    Details

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

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective