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 armchair psychological egoist argument can be rejected — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The armchair psychological egoist argument can be rejected

    Moral Responsibility
    ?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.The armchair psychological egoist argument requires both of its premises to be true in order to reach its conclusion
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The second premise — that all desires are to be understood on the model of hunger — is implausible
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityTruth & Knowledge

    Notable Defenders

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    AristotleancientNicomachean Ethics, Books VIII and IX

    Related

    The armchair psychological egoist argument requires both of its premises to be t...The second premise — that all desires are to be understood on the model of hunge...

    Similar

    The armchair psychological egoist argument requires both of its premis...89%The a priori argument for psychological egoism fails.87%Stirner explicitly considers and rejects the explanatory stance of psy...86%The premises that support the a priori argument for psychological egoi...85%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: altruism
    View source passageHide passage
    Recall the two premises used by the armchair psychological egoist: (i) What motivates us to act is always a desire; (ii) all desires are to be understood on the model of hunger. The second premise is implausible, as we have just seen; and, since both premises must be true for the argument to reach its conclusion, the argument can be rejected.
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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