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 Moore should revise his consequentialism to hold that one ought to do the action one has reason to believe will produce the best consequences, rather than the action that actually will produce the best consequences.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.An agent's epistemic limitations can themselves be morally culpable, so 'reason to believe' cannot fully discharge the agent's objective moral responsibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Moore's objective consequentialism preserves the action-guiding distinction between what one ought ideally to do and what one is blameworthy for failing to do, which the epistemic revision collapses.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Sidgwick's Methods of Ethics demonstrates that objective and subjective 'ought' claims serve distinct deliberative roles, neither of which can substitute for the other without theoretical loss.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Russell's proposed revision conflates the standard for right action with the standard for rational or praiseworthy action, a distinction central to act-consequentialist theory since Railton's 1984 account of sophisticated consequentialism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Moore's moral conservatism is more parsimoniously reconciled by indirect consequentialism—rule-following maximizes expected utility—without abandoning the objective criterion of actual best consequences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Moore's moral conservatism is only consistent with a standard of subjective or epistemic best consequences, not objective best consequences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.One may have reason to think that conforming to established moral rules will have the best consequences even when one knows this will not always be true.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Adopting the epistemic standard resolves the contradiction between Moore's consequentialism and his moral conservatism.
      ?

      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.