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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Restricting outcomes to causal consequences arbitrarily privileges one metaphysical category over others that agents rationally care about.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Causal consequences aren't arbitrary—they constitute the only empirically verifiable impact of actions on the world agents inhabit.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Non-causal goods like knowledge and virtue operate through causal mechanisms; distinguishing them privileges intuition over explanatory parsimony.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Rational agency requires some constraint on which outcomes matter morally; restricting to causation provides objective, universalizable criteria.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Agents rationally pursue intrinsic goods like knowledge, virtue, and relationships that aren't reducible to causal effects on future states.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Restricting moral consideration to causal consequences excludes agent intentions, character development, and duties that matter independently of outcomes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Multiple metaphysical categories (duties, rights, intrinsic values) guide rational deliberation; privileging causation lacks principled justification.
      ?

      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.