Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The Stoic conflation of psychological disposition with action-correctness smuggles agent-evaluation into act-evaluation without independent justification.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Stoics explicitly distinguish between preferred indifferents (externals) and virtue, so they don't actually conflate disposition with action-correctness.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The claim assumes act-evaluation must be independent from agent-evaluation, but this unity may be philosophically justified, not smuggled.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Stoic theory explains action-correctness through reason's assessment of what fits one's role and circumstances—a principled framework, not mere circularity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Action-correctness requires evaluating consequences and circumstances independent of the agent's internal state or virtue.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Stoics define right action solely by virtue/correct disposition, collapsing the distinct category of external action-evaluation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Without independent criteria for acts, Stoicism cannot explain why two agents with identical dispositions might face different moral duties.
?
How convincing is this?
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.