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 Act-consequentialist counterpart theories are explanatorily inadequate because they cannot provide a plausible rationale for certain deontic verdicts.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
The earnest consequentializer, in accepting the Compelling Idea as Reasons for Preferring Ground Deontic Statuses, must provide a rationale for deontic verdicts such as the wrongness of killing one innocent person even when the mafia credibly threatens to kill five others unless you do so.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The only rationale available to the earnest consequentializer for this verdict is that the agent ought to have a self-centered, self-indulgent preference for keeping their own hands clean.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The rationale that an agent ought to have a self-centered preference for keeping their hands clean is implausible.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Show 1 more premise
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Browse more in Consequentialism
Related propositions within the same area of thought.