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 consequentialist thesis that one ought always to ... — Carmelics
    Home/Consequentialism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

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

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Moore's epistemic humility argument collapses into a two-tier normative system where act-consequentialism governs ideal agents and rule-following governs actual agents.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A genuinely unified consequentialist theory cannot generate conflicting obligations depending solely on an agent's epistemic position without producing action-guidance contradictions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If 'ought' implies 'can know what to do', then Moore's unknowability claim does not resolve the contradiction but instead reveals that his framework lacks a coherent single standard of rightness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Sidgwick demonstrated in Methods of Ethics that any consequentialist theory must maintain extensional equivalence between its criterion of rightness and its decision procedure, or else explicitly bifurcate them as distinct normative levels.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Moore nowhere explicitly bifurcates his theory into a criterion level and a decision-procedure level, yet his conservatism functionally requires exactly this distinction to avoid contradiction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An implicit bifurcation that Moore never acknowledges or defends is not a solution to inconsistency but is itself evidence of the inconsistency, since the two levels generate conflicting verdicts on the same action.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Moore holds that one ought to perform the best action possible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Moore also holds that there are cases where breaking an established moral rule would be the best course of action.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Moore holds that we can never know which cases those are, and therefore we ought never to break established moral rules.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Topics

    Consequentialism

    Connections

    1 topic

    Moral Responsibility2 linked

    Related

    A genuinely unified consequentialist theory cannot generate conflicting obligati...An implicit bifurcation that Moore never acknowledges or defends is not a soluti...If 'ought' implies 'can know what to do', then Moore's unknowability claim does ...If there exist cases where breaking a rule is the best action, then the thesis '...
    +7 moreShow less
    Moore also holds that there are cases where breaking an established moral rule w...Moore holds that one ought to perform the best action possible.Moore holds that we can never know which cases those are, and therefore we ought...Moore nowhere explicitly bifurcates his theory into a criterion level and a deci...Moore's epistemic humility argument collapses into a two-tier normative system w...Ought to do X and ought not to do X in the same case is a contradiction.Sidgwick demonstrated in Methods of Ethics that any consequentialist theory must...

    Similar

    Moore's actualist consequentialism is inconsistent with his moral cons...88%Moore's brand of consequentialism (the view that the right action is a...85%Moore accepted that actualist consequentialism and moral conservatism ...83%Moore's brand of consequentialism holds that the right action is alway...83%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: russell-moral
    View source passageHide passage
    But the fact that these claims are not synonymous does not show that it is false that I ought to do that act which will, in fact, produce the best consequences. The latter claim could be synthetic (or, as Russell would have it, “significant”) but true. Why does Russell think it false? Russell raises the ad hominem objection that Moore’s thesis is flatly inconsistent with the moral conservatism that he goes on to embrace. According to Moore, although “there are cases where [an established moral]
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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