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
    If prohibition dilemmas were merely implausible verdicts,... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Non-consequentialist theories that include prohibition dilemmas are implausible.

    If prohibition dilemmas were merely implausible verdicts, we would expect convergence toward consequentialist intuitions under philosophical scrutiny, but the literature shows persistent, theory-informed resistance instead.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Philosophers systematically maintain non-consequentialist positions despite decades of counter-arguments, suggesting deep theoretical commitments rather than confusion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Prohibition dilemmas generate stable disagreement between sophisticated deontologists and consequentialists, inconsistent with mere implausibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If verdicts were merely implausible, we'd expect convergence on least-bad options; instead, theorists reject the dilemma's framing itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Persistent disagreement reflects competing frameworks, not evidence for genuine dilemmas; scientists disagree on implausible theories too.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Theory-informed resistance may indicate motivated reasoning within entrenched schools rather than grappling with substantive moral reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Absence of convergence can mean the problem is conceptually confused, not that multiple incompatible truths coexist.
      ?

      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.

    Key Terms

    Consequentialist intuitions(moral intuitions that Singer defends)
    Gut feelings that actions are right or wrong based on their results or outcomes—like feeling that breaking a promise is okay if it prevents more harm overall.
    Philosophical scrutiny(as used in academic philosophy)
    Careful, critical examination of ideas using logic and reasoning to test whether they hold up under tough questions.
    Prohibition dilemmas(as used in ethics)
    Ethical situations where an action seems both required and forbidden at the same time—like a scenario where you have to break one moral rule to follow another.
    Theory-informed resistance(as used in philosophy discourse)
    When people continue to disagree or push back against a conclusion, not because they're stubborn, but because their own logical framework or theory gives them good reasons to do so.
    Verdicts(as used in epistemology)
    Conclusions or final judgments about what is true or false.
    convergence(alternative to consensus-based public reason)
    A model of public justification that allows appeals to religious reasons, thereby not requiring exclusively secular justifications

    Connections

    2 topics

    Consequentialism1 linkedJustice & Punishment1 linked

    Related

    Absence of convergence can mean the problem is conceptually confused, not that m...If verdicts were merely implausible, we'd expect convergence on least-bad option...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit
    Non-consequentialist theories that include prohibition dilemmas are implausible.
    Persistent disagreement reflects competing frameworks, not evidence for genuine ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Philosophers systematically maintain non-consequentialist positions despite deca...Prohibition dilemmas generate stable disagreement between sophisticated deontolo...Theory-informed resistance may indicate motivated reasoning within entrenched sc...