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
    Monism can account for rational regret in value choice by... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Monism can account for rational regret in value choice by appealing to different bearers of value.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.In a choice between giving five units of pleasure to A and ten units of pleasure to B, the best option involves giving no pleasure to A.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The absence of pleasure for A constitutes a genuine loss, even when the better option is chosen.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A genuine loss provides rational grounds for regret.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rational regret requires that the forgone option had a claim on you that persists after choice, not merely that a bearer of value received less.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.On monism, once the superior option is identified, the lesser option's bearer has no residual claim—its value is fully commensurable and defeated, leaving no normative remainder.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without a genuine normative remainder, what monism licenses is disappointment at a suboptimal world, not the agent-implicating regret that Bernard Williams and Martha Nussbaum identify as morally significant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The supporting argument conflates loss of a bearer of value with loss of value simpliciter, but on strict monism these are not equivalent—only the latter grounds rational regret.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If pleasure and knowledge are merely different vessels for the same scalar quantity, then choosing ten units over five involves no loss of value, only a lower-scoring alternative, making regret analogous to regretting that 10 > 5.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityConsequentialism

    Connections

    1 topic

    Justice & Punishment1 linked

    Related

    A genuine loss provides rational grounds for regret.If pleasure and knowledge are merely different vessels for the same scalar quant...In a choice between giving five units of pleasure to A and ten units of pleasure...On monism, once the superior option is identified, the lesser option's bearer ha...
    +5 moreShow less
    Rational regret requires that the forgone option had a claim on you that persist...The absence of pleasure for A constitutes a genuine loss, even when the better o...The supporting argument conflates loss of a bearer of value with loss of value s...This pattern generalizes: whenever the superior option contributes value via one...Without a genuine normative remainder, what monism licenses is disappointment at...

    Similar

    We must treat ourselves as the source of value in a way that makes rat...81%Monism cannot ground rational conflict in value choice.78%The values at stake in a choice situation cannot on their own determin...77%Even argumentatively supported value judgments must be grounded in exp...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: value-pluralism
    View source passageHide passage
    One way for monists to make sense of complexity in value choice is to point out that there are different bearers of value, and this makes a big difference to the experience of choice. (See Hurka, 1996; Schaber, 1999; Klocksiem 2011). Here is the challenge to monism in Michael Stocker’s words (Stocker, 1990, p. 272): “[if monism is true] there is no ground for rational conflict because the better option lacks nothing that would be made good by the lesser.” In other words, there are no relevant di
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit