Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that A trait is good only if it reliably produces good outcomes across contexts, not merely by expressing rational order.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Some traits (justice, compassion) appear good precisely because they embody rational order, independent of contingent outcome measurement.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Outcome-based evaluation requires a pre-existing standard of 'good outcomes'—this standard itself cannot be justified through outcomes without circularity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Reliable outcome-production varies by context; this makes 'goodness' culturally relative, conflicting with our intuition that some traits are objectively virtuous.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Virtues like honesty sometimes produce harmful outcomes; calling them 'good' requires empirical validation across contexts, not just logical coherence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A trait's rationality doesn't guarantee goodness—rational self-interest can reliably produce outcomes we'd call immoral.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Moral claims should track what actually improves human flourishing, which requires testing traits' real-world consequences, not their internal logic.
?
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.