Skip to content

Topics Thinkers Changes ContributorsLoading 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

Made within

DC&

Austin

Statements: 321,452
Perspectives: 108,905
Topics: 42

A justification framework that systematically ignores dis... — Carmelics

History Edit See Inverse

Part of a larger discussion

Challenges→Proximate consequentialism makes it easier for agents and observers to justify moral judgments of acts.

A justification framework that systematically ignores distal but foreseeable consequences does not make moral judgment easier—it makes it easier to be wrong while feeling justified.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

?

1.Moral agents are causally responsible for effects they can foresee but choose to ignore, even if distant.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Frameworks limiting moral scope to immediate effects systematically rationalize harm we have power to prevent.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.Psychological ease in moral judgment correlates with bias, not accuracy—convenience is a reliability warning sign.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reasons Against

1 perspective

Reason against

?

1.Including all foreseeable consequences creates infinite moral responsibility, paralyzing ethical decision-making.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Distal consequences become increasingly speculative; moral frameworks need epistemic limits, not just causal scope.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.Feeling justified and being justified differ; ignoring distal effects may reflect appropriate epistemic humility, not bias.
?
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.

Key Terms

Foreseeable consequences(in determining moral responsibility): The outcomes or results of an action that you can reasonably predict or expect to happen.
distal consequences(as used in ethics): Results or effects that happen far away in time or space from your action—basically, the long-term or indirect impacts of what you do.
justification framework(as used in ethics and moral philosophy): A system of rules or principles you use to decide whether something is right or wrong, and to explain why you made that decision.
moral judgment(The author stipulates reserving 'judgment' for the psychological sense to minimize confusion): Ambiguous between (a) a psychological state or kind of thought and (b) a linguistic utterance

Connections

1 topic

Related

Distal consequences become increasingly speculative; moral frameworks need epist...Feeling justified and being justified differ; ignoring distal effects may reflec...Frameworks limiting moral scope to immediate effects systematically rationalize ...Including all foreseeable consequences creates infinite moral responsibility, pa...

+3 moreShow less

Moral agents are causally responsible for effects they can foresee but choose to...Proximate consequentialism makes it easier for agents and observers to justify m...

Details

Type: claim
Perspectives: 2 (1 for, 1 against)
Edits: 1 edit

Psychological ease in moral judgment correlates with bias, not accuracy—convenie...