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 need be no infinite regress in the justification of practical rationality principles if those principles are constitutive of rational agency itself.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Constitutive rules of an activity can be internally coherent yet morally arbitrary, as chess rules constitute chess without justifying chess.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If rational agency itself admits of multiple incompatible specifications, constitutive grounding merely relocates rather than eliminates the regress.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Korsgaard's own account requires a 'reflective endorsement' step external to mere constitution, revealing that constitution alone is insufficient for normative authority.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's own transcendental project required a 'fact of reason' beyond constitutive argument, suggesting constitution fails to close the justificatory gap.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A psychopath may satisfy all functional criteria of rational agency while systematically rejecting moral principles, falsifying the constitutive identity claim.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Principles that are constitutive of an activity provide justification without requiring a further external standard.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The principles of practical rationality are constitutive of rational agency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Constitutive standards are justified by the nature of the object they define.
      ?

      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.