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 The contingency of moral commitments does not undermine their normative force

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Normative force requires that a commitment's authority be grounded in something beyond the contingent perspective of the agent who holds it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A commitment arising from contingent causes (culture, upbringing, biology) provides no rational basis for binding others who lack that same contingent history.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Moral obligations, unlike love, make universalizable demands on all rational agents, so the analogy to love's contingency is structurally disanalogous.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Mackie's error theory establishes that if moral facts do not exist mind-independently, moral language systematically makes false objective claims.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Constructivism's concession that moral commitments are contingent implicitly surrenders the mind-independence that could ground genuine normative authority.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, contingent moral commitments retain only the force of preference or convention, not the categorical 'ought' morality requires.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Love is both contingent and compelling
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.By analogy, moral commitments can be contingent yet retain compelling normative force
      ?

      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.