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 G.E. Moore's consequentialism permits right action that produces maximum good even when performed by an agent wholly devoid of virtuous character.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Vicious agents systematically lack the practical wisdom to reliably identify and execute truly good actions over time.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Moore likely intended intrinsic goodness to include virtue itself, making vicious action-performance incoherent for him.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Permitting right action by vicious agents undermines morality's normative authority by severing it from human excellence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Moore's consequentialism evaluates acts by outcomes alone, not agent character, making virtue irrelevant to rightness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A vicious person producing maximum good objectively benefits humanity equally as a virtuous person doing identical act.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Conflating moral rightness with agent virtue commits a category error—conflates deontic and aretaic evaluation.
      ?

      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.