Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Therefore, reserving sexual satisfaction to marriage conflates one historically contingent instantiation of flourishing with the universal conditions for it.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Some universal human goods (trust, commitment, vulnerability) may correlate with marriage structures regardless of historical variation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Distinguishing contingent forms from their underlying functions is possible—marriage's specifics are historical, but bonding may not be.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The claim itself assumes a particular philosophical framework about flourishing that isn't self-evidently true.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Human flourishing encompasses diverse expressions across cultures and historical periods, not uniform blueprints.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Sexual satisfaction contributes to wellbeing through various contexts; restricting it to one institutional form is arbitrary.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Confusing culturally-specific practices with universal requirements limits human potential and ignores lived experience.
?
How convincing is this?
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.