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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.