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 We are not obligated to be totally devoted and unconditionally committed to each of two distinct beings

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.'Ought' implies 'can'
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.It is impossible to be totally devoted and unconditionally committed to each of two distinct beings
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's categorical imperative grounds obligation in rational universalizability, not in the metaphysical possibility of perfect fulfillment toward multiple objects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If two beings make structurally identical and mutually exclusive total-devotion demands, rational consistency requires we cannot universalize compliance with both.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the impossibility of dual total devotion reveals a normative conflict, not a mere empirical limitation that 'ought implies can' dissolves.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Frankfurt's account of wholehearted commitment requires a unified volitional structure where higher-order desires endorse first-order ones without internal conflict.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Total devotion to two distinct beings with potentially divergent commands structurally fractures the will, making genuine wholeheartedness toward either logically precluded.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Obligations requiring wholeheartedness cannot arise toward objects whose joint pursuit destroys the very volitional unity wholeheartedness demands.
      ?

      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.