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 An ethical theory whose action-guidance undermines its own constitutive motivations is seriously, not trivially, compromised.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Theories can have good content even if their application sometimes backfires; real-world friction doesn't prove fundamental theoretical failure.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Many valuable commitments (honesty, justice) require actions contrary to immediate motivation; this is feature, not flaw, of mature ethics.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Distinguishing 'constitutive motivations' from 'actions' assumes motivations are determinate and transparent, which is often philosophically unclear.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Ethical theories aim to guide action toward their underlying values; self-undermining guidance indicates the theory fails at its core function.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
When a theory's prescriptions contradict what motivates it, users cannot rationally endorse both the theory and following its guidance.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Internal coherence is a basic requirement for any normative system; self-defeating theories lack the rational integrity ethics demands.
?
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.