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 In cases involving conflicting moral principles, moral intuition is required to determine what action one ought to perform, all things considered

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Coherentist moral reasoning (Rawls, Daniels) resolves principle conflicts through reflective equilibrium, not raw intuition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Reflective equilibrium systematically revises both principles and judgments until consistency is achieved, bypassing the need for intuitive adjudication.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A method that produces revisable, coherent justifications is epistemically superior to an unrevisable intuitive verdict in cases of moral conflict.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Utilitarian aggregation (Bentham, Mill, Singer) provides a single, non-intuitive metric—net welfare—that resolves conflicts between competing prima facie duties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a principled algorithm can adjudicate moral conflicts without appealing to intuition, then intuition is not required but merely contingently used when rigorous theory is absent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Prima facie principles (e.g., one ought to be kind, other things being equal) can conflict in particular situations
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.No principle alone resolves conflicts between prima facie duties
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.W. D. Ross holds that we must use moral intuition to adjudicate between conflicting principles in a given case
      ?

      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.