Argunet Debates
Argument Map:0 C) Dancy's offensive argumentation
Dancys attacks against Universal Generalism. Broadly, three lines of attack can be distinguished. First line (top branch): Moral reasons are "holistic": What counts against some action in one case may count in favor of it in another. Second line (middle branch): Moral reasoning does not rest on principles: Principles have exceptions and moral reasons do not require them. Third line (bottom branch): Because Universal Particularism is the only sound alternative, Generalism has to be false.
This is a search-engine-friendly version of Argunet. To view the human-eye-friendly version please activate Javascript in your browser
Arguments
- Argument: : There are simple reasons
- Sentence: :
- Sentence: :
- Argument: : All principles fail
- Argument: : application
- Argument: : uncodifiable
- Sentence: :
- Argument: : First defense: Complex candidates
- Sentence: :
- Argument: : No clear distinction
- Sentence: :
- Sentence: :
- Argument: : Incomplete knowledge
- Argument: : Meta-Argument: No reason against
- Argument: : Strange conception
- Sentence: :
- Sentence: :
- Argument: : No real conflict
- Argument: : reasons = judgments
- Sentence: :
- Argument: : principles completely unnecessary
- Argument: : All or nothing
- Sentence: :
- Sentence: :
- Argument: : no principles
- Argument: : Enabling conditions necessary
- Sentence: :
Argument Maps
- 0 A) Two Kinds of Generalism
- 0 B) Varieties of Particularism
- 0 C) Dancy's offensive argumentation
- 0 D) Dancy's defensive argumentation
- 1. Two conceptions of moral principles / 2. What the Particularist Does Not Believe
- 3. What the Particularist Believes
- 4. Problems for Absolute Principles
- 5. Problems for Contributory Principles
- 6. The Generalists' Reply
- 7. Do Particularism and Generalism Differ in Practice or Only in Theory?
- 8. Problems for Particularism
- new subdebate