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
    Rational beings ought to choose in accordance with what w... — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Rational beings ought to choose in accordance with what will in fact happen, when they can know what that will be.

    ConsequentialismMoral Responsibility
    ?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.Rational beings are parts of rational nature.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Choosing in accordance with what will actually happen is wholly good and rational.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.What will actually happen is fully knowable only to gods, not to humans.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Moral responsibility requires that agents could have chosen otherwise, making outcome-conforming choice a criterion of rationality incoherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kant's categorical imperative grounds rational choice in universalizable maxims, not in alignment with actual outcomes, which are contingent and unknowable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If rational choice is defined by conformity to what will happen, deliberation becomes superfluous, undermining the very agency that makes choice rational.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aristotle's account of practical wisdom (phronesis) locates rational choice in reasoned deliberation about contingent particulars, not foreknowledge of fixed outcomes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Deliberation, as Aristotle argues in Nicomachean Ethics III, is only possible about what is genuinely open, so tying rationality to fixed futures collapses practical reason into fatalism.
      ?

      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

    Moral ResponsibilityConsequentialism

    Connections

    4 topics

    Virtue Ethics1 linkedPersonal Identity1 linkedSkepticism1 linkedDivine Attributes1 linked

    Related

    Aristotle's account of practical wisdom (phronesis) locates rational choice in r...Choosing in accordance with what will actually happen is wholly good and rationa...Deliberation, as Aristotle argues in Nicomachean Ethics III, is only possible ab...If rational choice is defined by conformity to what will happen, deliberation be...
    +4 moreShow less
    Kant's categorical imperative grounds rational choice in universalizable maxims,...Moral responsibility requires that agents could have chosen otherwise, making ou...

    Similar

    When the outcome is uncertain, rational beings ought to choose in acco...81%Aligning choice with nature's usual purpose is the appropriate substit...78%Choosing in accordance with what will actually happen is wholly good a...78%Rational choice requires regarding the chosen action as good in some w...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: stoicism
    View source passageHide passage
    We too, as rational parts of rational nature, ought to choose in accordance with what will in fact happen (provided we can know what that will be, which we rarely can – we are not gods; outcomes are uncertain to us) since this is wholly good and rational: when we cannot know the outcome, we ought to choose in accordance with what is typically or usually nature’s purpose, as we can see from experience of what usually does happen in the course of nature. In extreme circumstances, however, a choice
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Rational beings are parts of rational nature.
    What will actually happen is fully knowable only to gods, not to humans.
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit