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 we need non-consequentialist criteria to fix the reference class of permissions, rule consequentialism loses its claim to be a self-standing moral theory.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.All moral theories rely on some background framework (conceptual or metaphysical) distinguishing moral from non-moral facts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Needing external criteria to specify a theory's domain doesn't undermine its status as an independent substantive moral theory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Rule consequentialism could acknowledge reliance on non-consequentialist logic while remaining consequentialist about permissibility itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A theory is self-standing only if all its normative principles derive from its core commitment without external moral assumptions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rule consequentialism's core commitment is that rules are right iff their acceptance produces best consequences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Defining the permission reference class requires non-consequentialist judgments about what counts as a permissible alternative rule.
      ?

      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.