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 second premise of the ergon argument is incompatible with evolutionary biology

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The second premise asserts that exercise of reason is both the key structural property of human life and the realization of the fully developed human form
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.No sense can be made of the notion of a 'fully developed human form' in evolutionary terms
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aristotle's ergon argument grounds the 'fully developed human form' in functional teleology, not morphological fixity or species essentialism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Evolutionary biology itself employs functional explanations (e.g., adaptations) that presuppose normative standards of proper functioning for organisms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Ruth Millikan's teleosemantic framework shows that biological proper functions ground normative 'fullness' without requiring fixed essences, vindicating Aristotelian teleology.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Philippa Foot's naturalistic ethics in 'Natural Goodness' demonstrates that evolutionary organisms have evaluable life-form norms independent of fixed essences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If neo-Aristotelian naturalism can derive 'fully developed form' from species-typical flourishing patterns, the objection that evolution dissolves such norms loses its 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.