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
    The claim conflates epistemic justification for obligatio... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The epistemic argument for special obligations collapses under conditions where impartial calculation is demonstrably more effective, such as effective altruism scenarios.

    The claim conflates epistemic justification for obligations with causal effectiveness; an obligation can remain epistemically sound even if impartial action sometimes produces better outcomes.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Key Terms

    Causal effectiveness(as used in ethics and philosophy of action)
    The ability of something to actually cause or produce a result in the real world—whether an action actually works to create the outcome you want.
    Conflate(the criticism being made in the statement)
    To mistakenly treat two different things as if they were the same thing.
    Impartial action(as used in ethics)
    Doing something without favoring any particular person or group; treating everyone equally without bias or special preference.
    epistemic justification(Cresto's framing of the justification condition she argues is not always necessary)
    A condition for knowledge that can be understood either in internalist or externalist terms
    obligation

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Explore a random proposition
    Start fresh with something unrelated.
    (Within obligational disputation)
    The respondent's commitment to a specific stance on the case put forward by the opponent, which governs how the respondent must respond to subsequent propositions throughout the disputation.

    Connections

    1 linked claim

    The epistemic argument for special obligations collapses under conditions where ...

    Related

    The epistemic argument for special obligations collapses under conditions where ...

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective