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' internalist thesis involving sound deliberation from full information is inadequate because it fails to accommodate reasons that agents have precisely because they are incapable of deliberating soundly.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.There exist reasons that agents have precisely because they are not capable of deliberating soundly.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Williams' internalism identifies reasons via counterfactual sound deliberation from full information.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A counterfactual condition of sound deliberation excludes reasons grounded in the agent's incapacity for sound deliberation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Frankfurt's hierarchical model shows that agents with disordered wills have reasons tied to their actual volitional incapacities, not counterfactual ideal states.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An addict's reason to seek treatment presupposes their incapacity for sound deliberation and dissolves if that incapacity is removed via the counterfactual.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Williams' subjective motivational set cannot coherently generate the relevant reason if the counterfactual condition erases the very defect grounding that reason.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Korsgaard's constitutivism holds that reasons arise from the actual practical identity of the agent, including identities constituted by deliberative limitations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A reason grounded in an agent's actual incapacity for sound deliberation tracks the agent's real normative situation, not a fictional idealized surrogate self.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Replacing the actual agent with a counterfactually competent deliberator commits what Parfit called the 'different person' substitution error, undermining internalism's agent-relativity.
      ?

      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.