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
    There are no universal rational norms that bind all ratio... — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    There are no universal rational norms that bind all rational agents

    Moral Responsibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The substantive content of a given agent's reasons is a function of that agent's particular, contingently given, evaluative starting points
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Truth and falsity in the normative domain must always be relativized to a particular practical point of view
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rational agents, qua rational, are constitutively committed to consistency, non-contradiction, and means-end coherence regardless of contingent starting points.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.These formal constraints generate substantive universal norms: an agent cannot rationally will a maxim whose universal adoption undermines the conditions of rational agency itself (Kant, Groundwork).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, at least one universal rational norm—respect for rational agency—binds all rational agents independently of their particular evaluative starting points.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The claim that all normative truth is relativized to a particular practical point of view is itself advanced as a universally binding claim about the nature of normativity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This performative self-refutation—using a universal rational norm to deny universal rational norms—undermines the epistemic standing of the supporting arguments (cf. Korsgaard's critique of Humean constructivism).
      ?

      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

    Moral ResponsibilityTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    Rational agents, qua rational, are constitutively committed to consistency, non-...The claim that all normative truth is relativized to a particular practical poin...The substantive content of a given agent's reasons is a function of that agent's...Therefore, at least one universal rational norm—respect for rational agency—bind...
    +3 moreShow less
    These formal constraints generate substantive universal norms: an agent cannot r...This performative self-refutation—using a universal rational norm to deny univer...Truth and falsity in the normative domain must always be relativized to a partic...

    Similar

    Strong rationality relativism is untenable, but this does not require ...80%We are necessarily bound by the norms of rationality and morality.78%One can act only if one acts in accord with norms that any rational ag...77%Fully rational agents under normative models must find an optimal choi...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: constructivism-metaethics
    View source passageHide passage
    The case for Humean constructivism rests on the alleged inadequacy of competing views: “it is what we are forced to by the untenability of realism plus the failure of Kantian versions of metaethical constructivism” (Street 2010: 371). Humean constructivism denies that normative truths are independent of the deliverances of practical reasoning (Bagnoli 2002: 131; Street 2008a, 2010, 2012; Velleman 2009; Lenman 2010, 2012). To this extent, Humean constructivism builds on the Kantian insight that n
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit