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
    Consequentialist moral knowledge is undermined by the sam... — Carmelics
    Home/Consequentialism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Consequentialist moral knowledge is undermined by the same debunking argument used against deontological moral thought.

    ConsequentialismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    0 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Consequentialist thinking requires not only reasoned calculation of probable effects of actions, but also judgment about whether those effects are good or bad.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.System 1 (emotional, primitive evolutionary processing) plays an essential role in judging whether consequences are good or bad.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If system 1 contaminates the rationality of deontological judgments due to its emotional and primitive evolutionary nature, it equally contaminates consequentialist judgments about value.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    ConsequentialismTruth & Knowledge

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Key Terms

    knowledge(Distinguished from mere true belief, which may be the product of indoctrination and need not exercise deliberative capacities.)
    Justified true belief — true belief that has been arrived at through the exercise of deliberative capacities, including comparison of and deliberation among alternatives.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Consciousness & Mind1 linkedMoral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    Consequentialist thinking requires not only reasoned calculation of probable eff...If system 1 contaminates the rationality of deontological judgments due to its e...System 1 (emotional, primitive evolutionary processing) plays an essential role ...

    Similar

    The evolutionary debunking argument constitutes an attack on the exist...88%The debunking argument assumes moral beliefs are not about moral prope...85%The debunking argument against moral realism is weakened by its relian...83%Joyce's debunking argument begs the question against moral realism.83%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: moral-epistemology
    View source passageHide passage
    The story taken just this far, whatever its merits, appears to allow the possibility of moral knowledge grounded in consequentialist reasoning. All the data used to draw negative conclusions about deontological moral thought, however, can be interpreted to support a broader debunking argument, since consequentialist thinking requires not only reasoned calculation of the probable effects of alternative actions, but also judgment about whether these effects are good or bad (Kahane 2011, pp. 119–20
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    1 (0 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit