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
    We must postulate a supreme cause of nature having a caus... — Carmelics
    Home/Divine Attributes
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    We must postulate a supreme cause of nature having a causality in keeping with the moral disposition

    Divine AttributesNatural Theology
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Morality imposes an end upon us: realizing the highest good (greatest happiness consistent with greatest virtue)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.We must believe the realization of any morally imposed end to be possible
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The highest good requires a supreme cause of nature aligned with morality in order to be possible
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Moral obligation requires only that we act toward an end, not that we guarantee its cosmic realization through postulated beings.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Schopenhauer argues that grounding ethics in consequences like happiness corrupts its purity; duty is binding regardless of outcome.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A morality that requires postulating God to remain coherent is thereby shown to be insufficiently self-grounding as a practical system.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The inference from 'X must be possible' to 'a divine cause of X must exist' commits the fallacy of treating logical possibility as requiring ontological guarantors.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hume established that causal reasoning from natural order to a morally characterized deity involves an illicit anthropomorphic projection beyond available evidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Divine AttributesNatural Theology

    Connections

    4 topics

    Consequentialism1 linkedModality & Possibility1 linkedVirtue Ethics1 linkedMoral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    A morality that requires postulating God to remain coherent is thereby shown to ...Hume established that causal reasoning from natural order to a morally character...Moral obligation requires only that we act toward an end, not that we guarantee ...Morality imposes an end upon us: realizing the highest good (greatest happiness ...
    +4 moreShow less
    Schopenhauer argues that grounding ethics in consequences like happiness corrupt...The highest good requires a supreme cause of nature aligned with morality in ord...

    Similar

    The highest good requires a supreme cause of nature aligned with moral...84%Belief that the causal structure of nature is conducive to moral means...83%Achieving the highest good requires that the causal structure of natur...83%There is no a priori reason and little empirical reason to think moral...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: aesthetics-18th-german
    View source passageHide passage
    But what problem about the efficacy of the laws of freedom in the realm of nature could remain to be solved after the first two critiques? The Critique of Pure Reason had argued that although we can disprove the possibility of any breach in the determinism of the natural world and cannot have theoretical knowledge of the freedom of our will in the noumenal world, nevertheless we can coherently conceive of the latter. And the Critique of Practical Reason had argued that we can confidently infer t
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    The inference from 'X must be possible' to 'a divine cause of X must exist' comm...
    We must believe the realization of any morally imposed end to be possible
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit