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 Sanction utilitarianism defines wrongness via what ought to be sanctioned, but 'ought' here must invoke a prior moral standard independent of sanctions.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Sanction utilitarianism avoids circularity by grounding 'ought to sanction' in empirical consequences, not prior moral standards.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
All theories presuppose foundational standards; this is not a unique problem for sanction utilitarianism but shared across all moral views.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The moral 'ought' in sanctions can reduce to what maximizes utility, making an independent standard unnecessary, not a logical requirement.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Sanction utilitarianism risks circularity: defining wrongness by what deserves sanctions requires prior criteria for what sanctions are justified.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
All moral frameworks ultimately appeal to foundational standards; sanction utilitarianism cannot be self-justifying without external moral principles.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The claim that 'this act ought to be sanctioned' expresses a moral judgment distinct from the factual claim that sanctions will occur.
?
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.