Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Moral value is grounded in the objective good of sentient beings, not in the act of self-legislation, as Aristotle and Philippa Foot argue.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
The 'objective good' of sentient beings cannot be specified without substantive value judgments that themselves require normative grounding.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Grounding morality in flourishing privileges particular conceptions of the good life, illegitimately constraining individual self-determination and diverse life-plans.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Sentience and flourishing lack the normative authority to obligate us morally unless we've already committed to valuing them as grounds for obligation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Sentient beings have intrinsic capacity to suffer and flourish, providing an objective ground for moral value independent of human legislation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Moral realism better explains our intuition that slavery was wrong even when legally permitted, suggesting morality transcends subjective decision-making.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Natural teleology in living beings (health, functioning, flourishing) provides objective moral facts without requiring autonomous rational will.
?
How convincing is this?
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.