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
    No general science of the causes of pleasure and pain exists — Carmelics
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Spencer's deductive hedonism fails as a moral system

    No general science of the causes of pleasure and pain exists

    ConsequentialismSkepticism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    SkepticismConsequentialism

    Connections

    3 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedVirtue Ethics

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Skepticism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    1 linked
    Moral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    Deductive hedonism requires a general science of the causes of pleasure and painSpencer's deductive hedonism fails as a moral systemWithout such a science, universal and indefeasible moral rules for promoting hap...

    Similar

    Deductive hedonism requires a general science of the causes of pleasur...91%Moral considerations must somehow produce sensations of pleasure or pa...83%The concept of pleasure may refer to both intellectual and sensual exp...77%Conceptual analysis of 'pleasure' may not confirm that pleasure is one...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: spencer
    View source passageHide passage
    For Sidgwick, Spencer’s utilitarianism was merely seemingly deductive even though it purported to be more scientific and rigorously rational than “empirical” utilitarianism. However, deductive hedonism fails because, contrary to what deductive hedonists like Spencer think, no general science of the causes of pleasure and pain exists, insuring that we will never succeed in formulating universal, indefeasible moral rules for promoting happiness. Moreover, Spencer only makes matters worse for himse

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective