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 original dilemma can be turned back on the interrogator — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The original dilemma can be turned back on the interrogator

    No other argument is betterSkepticism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Disjunctive arguments derive their force from logical structure, not from the identity or standing of the party who deploys them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a dilemma's branches collectively exhaust the relevant possibilities, any party facing those same conditions falls under its scope equally.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Valla's humanist jurisprudence, following Roman rhetorical practice, treats retorsio argumenti as a legitimate and symmetrical dialectical move.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.An interrogator who constructs a dilemma implicitly commits to the validity of its logical form, binding themselves to its consequences under analogous conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Pragmatic self-refutation, recognized from the Sophists through Wittgenstein's rule-following considerations, holds that one cannot coherently wield a logical tool one is simultaneously exempt from.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If the accused person is modest, the accusation should proceed because the accused will be concerned by such a charge
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the accused person is bad, the accusation should also proceed because the accused is not a good man
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A disjunctive argument can be duplicated and redirected against its originator
      ?

      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

    SkepticismNo other argument is better

    Connections

    2 topics

    Justice & Punishment2 linkedVirtue Ethics1 linked

    Related

    A disjunctive argument can be duplicated and redirected against its originatorAn interrogator who constructs a dilemma implicitly commits to the validity of i...Disjunctive arguments derive their force from logical structure, not from the id...If a dilemma's branches collectively exhaust the relevant possibilities, any par...
    +4 moreShow less
    If the accused person is bad, the accusation should also proceed because the acc...If the accused person is modest, the accusation should proceed because the accus...Pragmatic self-refutation, recognized from the Sophists through Wittgenstein's r...

    Similar

    The first horn of Hume's dilemma does not definitively preclude an a p...69%Being unable to demonstrate one's justification to an interrogator doe...67%Premise P6, which rules out circular arguments, is part of the second ...66%Blamers must not jump to conclusions about wrongdoing65%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: lorenzo-valla
    View source passageHide passage
    Dilemma, too, receives extensive treatment from him. This type of argument had been widely studied in antiquity. The basic structure is a disjunction of propositions, usually in the form of a double question in an interrogation, which sets a trap for the respondent, since whichever horn of the dilemma he chooses, he seems to be caught up in a contradiction and will lose the debate (“If he is modest, why should you accuse someone who is a good man? If he is bad, why should you accuse someone who
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Valla's humanist jurisprudence, following Roman rhetorical practice, treats reto...
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit