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
    Moore's epistemic humility argument collapses into a two-... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Moore's consequentialist thesis that one ought always to perform the best action possible is internally inconsistent with Moore's own moral conservatism.

    Moore's epistemic humility argument collapses into a two-tier normative system where act-consequentialism governs ideal agents and rule-following governs actual agents.

    ?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.Moore acknowledges ideal agents can calculate consequences perfectly, justifying act-consequentialism for them alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Actual agents suffer cognitive limits and bias, making rule-following more reliable than direct consequence evaluation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This two-tier system is logically coherent: different epistemic capacities warrant different normative frameworks.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A unified normative theory shouldn't require bifurcation; if true, it should apply to all agents regardless of capacity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The distinction between ideal and actual agents is descriptive, not normative—it cannot itself justify different moral systems.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Moore's humility argument presupposes rule-following is correct for actual agents, but never establishes why this follows from humility.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Consequentialism1 linked

    Related

    A unified normative theory shouldn't require bifurcation; if true, it should app...Actual agents suffer cognitive limits and bias, making rule-following more relia...Moore acknowledges ideal agents can calculate consequences perfectly, justifying...Moore's consequentialist thesis that one ought always to perform the best action...
    +3 moreShow less
    Moore's humility argument presupposes rule-following is correct for actual agent...The distinction between ideal and actual agents is descriptive, not normative—it...This two-tier system is logically coherent: different epistemic capacities warra...

    Details

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