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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Consequentialism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.