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
    Foot's argument against act-consequentialism fails. — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Foot's argument against act-consequentialism fails.

    ConsequentialismMoral Responsibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Foot's argument presupposes a robust agent-neutral ranking of states of affairs that consequentialists like Parfit and Scheffler have shown to be theoretically optional.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If no agent-neutral ranking is presupposed, Foot's inference that act-consequentialism demands preferring 'better' states collapses into circularity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Act-consequentialism can be formulated without any pre-theoretic notion of 'better states,' making Foot's critique target a strawman version of the view.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Foot's argument assumes that agent-relative constraints cannot be accommodated within a consequentialist framework, but scalar consequentialism (as defended by Norcross) denies this.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Scalar consequentialism evaluates acts on a continuum of moral quality rather than binary right/wrong, dissolving Foot's challenge that constraints generate impermissible trade-offs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Foot's argument relies on the claim that it can never be right to prefer a worse state of affairs to a better one.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Foot is wrong that it can never be right to prefer a worse state of affairs to a better one.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityConsequentialism

    Related

    Act-consequentialism can be formulated without any pre-theoretic notion of 'bett...Foot is wrong that it can never be right to prefer a worse state of affairs to a...Foot's argument assumes that agent-relative constraints cannot be accommodated w...Foot's argument presupposes a robust agent-neutral ranking of states of affairs ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Foot's argument relies on the claim that it can never be right to prefer a worse...If no agent-neutral ranking is presupposed, Foot's inference that act-consequent...Scalar consequentialism evaluates acts on a continuum of moral quality rather th...

    Similar

    Moore's brand of consequentialism (the view that the right action is a...81%Act-consequentialism holds that an act is permissible if and only if i...80%If each available act has some alternative with a better outcome, then...80%Any deontic verdict that act-consequentialism cannot accommodate shoul...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: consequentializing
    View source passageHide passage
    But, of course, act-consequentialism is not a theory about what it is right to prefer, but rather a theory about what it is right to do. Nevertheless, we can charitably interpret Foot as assuming that the Compelling Idea is Most Reason to Desire. This idea in conjunction with her claim that it can never be right to prefer a worse state of affairs to a better one entails the thought that it is always morally permissible to bring about the best outcome, and this is the thought that she sought to
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit