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
    Brad Hooker's canonical formulation of rule consequential... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Rule consequentialists should ask 'What would happen if everybody were permitted to do that?' rather than 'What would happen if everybody did that?'

    Brad Hooker's canonical formulation of rule consequentialism uses internalization by the majority, not universal permission, as the relevant test case.

    ?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.Hooker explicitly argues internalization by the majority better captures real-world moral practice than universal permission tests.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Majority internalization avoids implausible demands that universal adoption would create for rare, context-dependent rules.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This formulation pragmatically aligns rule consequentialism with social stability and actual human psychological capacities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Majority internalization introduces arbitrary cutoff problems: why majority rather than 75% or 90%? No principled answer exists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rule consequentialist justification requires showing rules maximize consequences generally, not merely when most people follow them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Hooker's own texts remain ambiguous about whether internalization or consequences-maximization is the ultimate criterion.
      ?

      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

    Hooker explicitly argues internalization by the majority better captures real-wo...Hooker's own texts remain ambiguous about whether internalization or consequence...Majority internalization avoids implausible demands that universal adoption woul...Majority internalization introduces arbitrary cutoff problems: why majority rath...
    +3 moreShow less
    Rule consequentialist justification requires showing rules maximize consequences...Rule consequentialists should ask 'What would happen if everybody were permitted...This formulation pragmatically aligns rule consequentialism with social stabilit...

    Details

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