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
    A theory that denies intrinsic value to intermediate good... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Monist theories can be pluralist at the level of ordinary choice by positing intermediate values that derive their worth from a single foundational value

    A theory that denies intrinsic value to intermediate goods is monist at every level that matters morally, making pluralism at the choice level a superficial relabeling.

    ?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.If intermediate goods have no intrinsic value, their moral significance derives entirely from end-states they produce.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Pluralism about choice-level options collapses to monism when all options evaluate to a single underlying metric at the foundational level.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Calling different instrumental paths 'plural' obscures that they're merely different routes to one monistic end-value.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Multiple intrinsically valuable end-states can justify genuinely plural choices, even if each intermediate good serves only instrumental roles.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Choice-level pluralism tracks real moral distinctions (autonomy, dignity, process-fairness) even when all paths serve one foundational value.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A theory can be monist about ultimate value yet fundamentally pluralist about what makes an option morally permissible or rational.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Consequentialism1 linked

    Related

    A theory can be monist about ultimate value yet fundamentally pluralist about wh...Calling different instrumental paths 'plural' obscures that they're merely diffe...Choice-level pluralism tracks real moral distinctions (autonomy, dignity, proces...If intermediate goods have no intrinsic value, their moral significance derives ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Monist theories can be pluralist at the level of ordinary choice by positing int...Multiple intrinsically valuable end-states can justify genuinely plural choices,...Pluralism about choice-level options collapses to monism when all options evalua...

    Details

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