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 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.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.