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 must be a 'covering value' or 'what matters' that h... — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    There must be a 'covering value' or 'what matters' that has content beyond the values and the circumstances of the choice.

    Moral ResponsibilityVirtue Ethics
    ?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.Values alone cannot determine their own weightings in a choice situation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Values plus circumstances cannot determine the relevant weightings either.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Something must determine the relevant weightings for rational comparison to be possible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aristotelian phronesis resolves value conflicts through situational perception, not by appeal to any content-bearing meta-value above the virtues.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The practically wise agent reads the morally salient features of particular situations without invoking a covering value to adjudicate between competing goods.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If phronesis suffices for rational weighing, P3's demand that 'something beyond values and circumstances' must determine weightings is demonstrably false.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Isaiah Berlin and Bernard Williams held that tragic choice is genuine precisely because no covering value resolves incommensurable conflicts without remainder.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The regret and moral residue that persist after hard choices constitute evidence that no higher-order value actually succeeded in commensurability—only a decision was made.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore the inference from 'rational comparison occurred' to 'a covering value with independent content exists' conflates making a choice with rationally resolving a conflict.
      ?

      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 ResponsibilityVirtue Ethics

    Related

    Aristotelian phronesis resolves value conflicts through situational perception, ...If phronesis suffices for rational weighing, P3's demand that 'something beyond ...Isaiah Berlin and Bernard Williams held that tragic choice is genuine precisely ...Something must determine the relevant weightings for rational comparison to be p...
    +6 moreShow less
    The practically wise agent reads the morally salient features of particular situ...The regret and moral residue that persist after hard choices constitute evidence...Therefore the inference from 'rational comparison occurred' to 'a covering value...Therefore, that something must have content beyond both the values and the circu...Values alone cannot determine their own weightings in a choice situation.Values plus circumstances cannot determine the relevant weightings either.

    Similar

    Therefore, that something must have content beyond both the values and...85%There is more than one sort of morally relevant property, or more than...75%Anything can have value if it matters to a thing75%The values plus the circumstances of a choice cannot together determin...74%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: value-pluralism
    View source passageHide passage
    There is a problem in understanding quite what a ‘synthesizing category’ or ‘covering value’ is. How does the covering value determine the relative weightings of the constituent values? One possibility is that it does it by pure stipulation—as a martini just is a certain proportion of gin and vermouth. However, stipulation does not have the right sort of explanatory power. On the other hand, if a view is to remain pluralist, it must avoid conflating the super scale with a super value. Chang arg
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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