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 The Aristotelian conflation of the good life for the agent with the ground of right action commits a systematic equivocation between agent-relative and agent-neutral value.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Aristotle's eudaimonia includes virtue as essential, and virtues like justice are inherently agent-neutral in their demands and scope.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The distinction between agent-relative and agent-neutral value is itself contestable; flourishing may not reduce to mere self-interest.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Modern virtue ethics successfully uses eudaimonia as a foundation for objective moral requirements without equivocation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Agent-relative value (what benefits me) and agent-neutral value (what is objectively right) operate on different logical foundations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Aristotle derives obligations from eudaimonia, but eudaimonia is inherently agent-centered, making it unsuitable as a ground for universal duties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Confusing personal flourishing with moral rightness allows one to rationalize self-interested acts as ethically justified.
      ?

      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.