Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Williams' 'sound deliberative route' criterion is so permissive it collapses internalism into a form of externalism, as Korsgaard and Parfit argue.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
The 'sound deliberative route' is actually quite restrictive—it requires facts to connect to actual desires, not merely possible ones externalists posit.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Internalism's core claim is motivational internalism about reasons, not epistemic permissiveness about how desires shape deliberation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Kolsgaard and Parfit conflate permissiveness about content with collapse of the internal-external distinction itself.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Williams allows reasons to count if they're reachable via any deliberative route from actual desires, making the constraint nearly vacuous.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If virtually any external fact can connect to motivation through some chain of reasoning, internalism loses its distinctive claim about motivational necessity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Korsgaard and Parfit show that Williams' criterion permits agent-external facts to ground reasons, mirroring externalism's core commitments.
?
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.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42