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 If even the paradigm case of agent-based virtue ethics covertly appeals to welfare facts, the proposed irreducibility criterion excludes the very theories it was designed to classify.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Mentioning welfare facts doesn't entail reducing virtue to welfare; peripheral appeals differ from foundational commitment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The criterion may target only theories claiming *irreducibility*, not those actually using welfare concepts as explanatory bedrock.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Covert appeals could indicate conceptual confusion in specific theorists rather than a flaw in the irreducibility criterion itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Agent-based virtue ethics treats flourishing as foundational, yet flourishing is analyzable in terms of well-being outcomes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the criterion's target theories all invoke welfare facts, the criterion fails to distinguish virtue ethics from consequentialism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A classification system that excludes its intended members is self-refuting and should be abandoned or revised.
      ?

      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.