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 Thus primitivism about normativity as a generic feature is compatible with reductive analyses of particular normative properties like goodness or obligation.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
If normativity is genuinely primitive, reductive analyses of particular normative properties seem to undermine that primitiveness.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Accepting primitive normativity creates explanatory pressure to derive all normative properties from it, not reduce them independently.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The claim conflates logical independence (primitiveness) with metaphysical heterogeneity, without justifying why normativity would be mixed.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Some normative concepts (like 'ought') may be irreducibly primitive while others (like 'good') admit reductive explanation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A theory can be layered: primitive normative structure at the foundation with derivative normative properties built upon it.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Not all properties within a domain require uniform metaphysical status; normativity may have both primitive and non-primitive instances.
?
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.