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
    Therefore, no natural property can serve as a correct con... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→There cannot be a correct naturalistic constitutive explanation of the normative properties.

    Therefore, no natural property can serve as a correct constitutive explanation of any normative property.

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    A correct constitutive explanation of a normative property must identify a natur...Natural properties are not normative.There cannot be a correct naturalistic constitutive explanation of the normative...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    Similar

    A correct constitutive explanation of a normative property must identi...93%There cannot be a correct naturalistic constitutive explanation of the...92%Normative properties can only be constitutively explained in terms tha...91%If at least one natural property is normative, then the claim that no ...90%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: normativity-metaethics
    View source passageHide passage
    One might think it is obvious that there could not be a correct naturalistic constitutive explanation of normativity or of the normative properties. Consider the property wrongness, assuming there is such a thing. Assuming that this property is normative, a correct constitutive explanation of the essential nature of this property would need to identify a natural property (or naturalistic condition) as the explanans, and this natural property would have to be normative. According to a kind of met

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective