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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that An agent's intention partially constitutes the moral character of an act, not merely its causal structure (Anscombe, 'Modern Moral Philosophy', 1958).

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Intentions are epistemically opaque; we cannot reliably assess others' mental states, making intention-based morality impractical.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Consequences are objective and verifiable; intentions are subjective claims that agents can rationalize or misrepresent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If moral character depends partly on intentions, agents could achieve moral redemption through hidden mental reorientation without restitution.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Acts with identical physical outcomes differ morally: intentional killing vs. accidental killing reveal distinct moral character.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Moral evaluation requires understanding inner states; external behavior alone cannot capture moral agency or virtue.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Consequentialist accounts fail to distinguish deliberate cruelty from regrettable harm, missing crucial moral distinctions.
      ?

      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.