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 Williams' argument for internalism about reasons is stronger than the Classical Argument for internalism

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Williams' 'sound deliberative route' criterion is so permissive it collapses internalism into a form of externalism, as Korsgaard and Parfit argue.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If any motivating state reachable via idealized deliberation counts, then reasons grounded in impartial concern or Kantian duty qualify as internal reasons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A view that cannot exclude paradigmatic externalist reasons fails as a distinctively internalist position, making it weaker than HTM-based accounts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The Classical Argument's dependence on HTM is a strength, not a weakness, because HTM is independently supported by the Humean tradition from Hume through Davidson.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Williams' disposition-based account inherits all motivational explanatory burdens of HTM while adding obscurity about what counts as a 'disposition to be motivated'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An argument built on well-articulated, debated premises like HTM is epistemically stronger than one resting on an underspecified dispositional modal claim.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Williams' argument grounds reasons in dispositions to be motivated, not actual desires
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Dispositions are sufficient to explain why an agent would be motivated under counterfactual conditions
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Actual desires are not necessary for such counterfactual motivation explanations
      ?

      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.