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
    On teleological views, the evaluative is prior to the deo... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Consequentialism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    On teleological views, the evaluative is prior to the deontic.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Teleological theories explain deontic facts by appeal to evaluative facts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.That which explains is prior to that which it explains.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Ross's prima facie duties are self-evident moral facts that hold independently of any evaluation of consequences or states of affairs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If deontic facts can be self-evident without grounding in evaluative facts, then the explanatory relationship asserted by teleological views is not necessary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The existence of a coherent non-teleological moral framework with genuine explanatory force defeats the claim that evaluative priority is a general feature of moral theory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.On Kantian deontology, deontic facts (duties derived from the categorical imperative) are prior to and constrain what counts as valuable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If deontic constraints determine which outcomes may be pursued, then the deontic is explanatorily prior to the evaluative, inverting the teleological order.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Consequentialism

    Connections

    2 topics

    Causation2 linkedTruth & Knowledge1 linked

    Related

    If deontic constraints determine which outcomes may be pursued, then the deontic...If deontic facts can be self-evident without grounding in evaluative facts, then...On Kantian deontology, deontic facts (duties derived from the categorical impera...Ross's prima facie duties are self-evident moral facts that hold independently o...
    +3 moreShow less
    Teleological theories explain deontic facts by appeal to evaluative facts.That which explains is prior to that which it explains.The existence of a coherent non-teleological moral framework with genuine explan...

    Similar

    Jackson and Pargetter's view, like view (G), determines deontic status...78%Teleological theories explain deontic facts by appeal to evaluative fa...77%Jackson and Pargetter's view does not assess an act's deontic status i...74%Consequentialism and deontology are impartialist moral theories that c...72%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: value-theory
    View source passageHide passage
    Teleological theories are not, strictly speaking, theories about value. They are theories about right action, or about what one ought to do. But they are committed to claims about value, because they appeal to evaluative facts, in order to explain what is right and wrong, and what we ought to do — deontic facts. The most obvious consequence of these theories, is therefore that evaluative facts must not then be explained in terms of deontic facts. The evaluative, on such views, is prior to the de
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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