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
    The inference from 'Act A is a lie' to 'Act A is wrong' i... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Truth & Knowledge
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The inference from 'Act A is a lie' to 'Act A is wrong' is criterial evidence, not causal or standard inductive evidence.

    Truth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Lying does not cause wrongness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The inference from 'Act A is a lie' to 'Act A is wrong' is not grounded in any empirical generalization about lies.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Moral realists like Cornell realists (Sturgeon, Boyd) hold that moral properties are natural properties with genuine causal efficacy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If wrongness supervenes on natural properties that have causal roles, the inference from 'lie' to 'wrong' tracks causal-explanatory relations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A criterial/causal distinction presupposes non-naturalism, which is a substantive metaethical commitment, not a neutral logical observation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hume and his empiricist heirs argue that moral inference requires empirical grounding in human sentiments and social consequences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'lying is wrong' derives its normative force from regularities about harm and trust-violation, the inference is partly inductive in character.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Beardsley's criterial model conflates the epistemic role of moral concepts with their semantic content, as Mackie's error theory would expose.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Truth & Knowledge

    Connections

    2 topics

    Causation1 linkedMoral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    A criterial/causal distinction presupposes non-naturalism, which is a substantiv...Beardsley's criterial model conflates the epistemic role of moral concepts with ...Hume and his empiricist heirs argue that moral inference requires empirical grou...If 'lying is wrong' derives its normative force from regularities about harm and...
    +4 moreShow less
    If wrongness supervenes on natural properties that have causal roles, the infere...Lying does not cause wrongness.Moral realists like Cornell realists (Sturgeon, Boyd) hold that moral properties...The inference from 'Act A is a lie' to 'Act A is wrong' is not grounded in any e...

    Similar

    The inference from 'Act A is a lie' to 'Act A is wrong' shares key fea...92%The inference from 'Act A is a lie' to 'Act A is wrong' is not grounde...91%Like a standard inductive argument, the strength of the inference from...91%The inference from 'Act A is a lie' to 'Act A is wrong' is not a deduc...90%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: beardsley-aesthetics
    View source passageHide passage
    for A might be right even so, when all ethically relevant factors are taken into account. If A helps to save innocent people’s lives, for example, it’s right—actually right, as Ross says—even though it’s a lie. Nor is the relation between (L) and (W) causal or inductive. Lying doesn’t cause wrongness, and although it might be that most (or even all) lies are all-things-considered wrong—actually wrong—it might be that most (or even all) lies aren’t all-things-considered wrong—actually wrong. Rega
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit