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 Even if an ideal moral code for perfectly moral humans could be conceptualized, it would be normatively inadequate

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Actual humans have desires, emotions, and irrational proclivities
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A moral code designed for hypothetically perfectly moral beings does not address the actual desires, emotions, and irrational proclivities of real humans
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A moral code that does not address the actual conditions of real humans provides inadequate normative guidance
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Moral codes derive normative force from their capacity to guide agents through genuine motivational conflict, not merely to describe frictionless ideal action.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A code for perfectly moral beings presupposes the very virtuous dispositions that moral guidance is needed to cultivate, rendering it action-guiding only for those who need no guidance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Aristotle's account in the Nicomachean Ethics grounds practical wisdom precisely in the navigation of akrasia and competing desires, which perfectly moral agents by definition never face.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.R.M. Hare's two-level utilitarianism distinguishes critical from intuitive moral thinking because ideal reasoning is cognitively inaccessible to agents under real-world conditions of bias and time pressure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A moral code adequate only for beings immune to bias, weakness of will, and cognitive limitation fails the action-guidance condition under non-ideal theory as articulated by Rawls and Farrelly.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Normative adequacy requires what Derek Parfit calls 'robustness to predictable human failure,' a criterion no ideal-agent code can satisfy by its own design parameters.
      ?

      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.