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 There is a property of goodness that is not identical to any naturalistic property of X-ness

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Premise 2 of the supporting argument embeds a Fregean theory of meaning that conflates sense with reference, which Kripke and Putnam's causal-historical semantics rejects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If predicates refer via causal chains rather than descriptive meaning, 'good' could rigidly designate a naturalistic property even if its meaning differs from naturalistic predicates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Cornell Realists (Boyd, Sturgeon) ground moral predicates in homeostatic property clusters, providing a naturalistic referent without analytic reduction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The Open Question Argument assumes analyticity is the only way properties can be identical, but properties can be identical without synonymous predicates (Kripke).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Natural properties like H2O and water are identical despite 'water is H2O' not being analytically true, so 'good' could pick out a natural property non-analytically.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.'Good' does not mean the same as any naturalistic predicate X
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The meaning of a predicate is the property for which it stands (premise 3)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore 'good' stands for a property distinct from any naturalistic property
      ?

      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.