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 inference from 'Act A is a lie' to 'Act A is wrong' shares key features with inductive inference.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Prima facie duties, as Rossian deontology holds, are defeasible but not probabilistic — they bind categorically unless overridden by stronger duties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Inductive inference is weakened by counterexamples proportionally, but a prima facie wrong remains fully obligatory until a specific defeater obtains.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The logical structure of defeasibility in moral reasoning is thus closer to default logic than to Bayesian probability revision.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hare's prescriptivism holds that moral universalizability is a logical, not empirical, feature of moral terms like 'wrong'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'lie' analytically entails prima facie wrongness via the logic of moral language, the inference is deductive-conceptual, not inductive.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Like a standard inductive argument, the strength of the inference from 'Act A is a lie' to 'Act A is wrong' is not all-or-nothing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Additional premises can weaken or strengthen the inference, as is characteristic of inductive reasoning.
      ?

      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.