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 prima facie/pro tanto distinction cannot rescue ME normativity if the underlying semantic fact generating the obligation is itself indeterminate.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Prima facie obligations can be determinate even if their ultimate weight or application depends on indeterminate factors.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Semantic indeterminacy at the ground level doesn't entail indeterminacy of normative force; multiple determinate sources can combine.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim equivocates 'generating' (explaining causally) with 'grounding' (justifying); these may require different determinacy levels.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If semantic facts are indeterminate, they cannot ground determinate obligations, whether prima facie or all-things-considered.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The prima facie/pro tanto distinction merely defers determination to weighing; it doesn't resolve underlying semantic indeterminacy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Moral Error Theory requires a determinate semantic fact to explain why all moral claims systematically fail to refer.
      ?

      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.