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
    The Coherentist Procedure may require revising pre-theore... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The Coherentist Procedure may require revising pre-theoretical judgments about which outcomes an agent ought to prefer.

    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.A target non-consequentialist theory may hold that turning in one's daughter to police is morally better than refraining.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The pre-theoretical judgment is that one ought to prefer the outcome in which one refrains from turning in one's daughter.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The act-consequentialist counterpart theory must either diverge from the target theory or reject the pre-theoretical preference judgment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Pre-theoretical judgments in reflective equilibrium are not fixed data points but themselves subject to revision when they conflict with well-supported principles.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rawls's coherentist methodology explicitly permits revising particular judgments when doing so produces greater systematic coherence across the full set of moral beliefs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, revising pre-theoretical preference judgments is not a defect of the Coherentist Procedure but a constitutive feature of any legitimate coherentist moral epistemology.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Bernard Williams's integrity objection shows that pre-theoretical judgments about agent-relative preferences often track deep commitments to personal projects and relationships, not mere moral intuitions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If such judgments encode agent-relative values that are independently defensible on non-consequentialist grounds, then their revision by the Coherentist Procedure begs the question against the target theory rather than vindicating it.
      ?

      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

    1 topic

    Justice & Punishment1 linked

    Related

    A target non-consequentialist theory may hold that turning in one's daughter to ...Bernard Williams's integrity objection shows that pre-theoretical judgments abou...If such judgments encode agent-relative values that are independently defensible...Maintaining co-extensiveness with the target theory requires rejecting the pre-t...
    +5 moreShow less
    Pre-theoretical judgments in reflective equilibrium are not fixed data points bu...Rawls's coherentist methodology explicitly permits revising particular judgments...The act-consequentialist counterpart theory must either diverge from the target ...The pre-theoretical judgment is that one ought to prefer the outcome in which on...Therefore, revising pre-theoretical preference judgments is not a defect of the ...

    Similar

    Judgments about which outcomes an agent ought to prefer can be indepen...87%Evaluative rankings of outcomes are judgments about what the agent oug...80%Nothing prior to an agent's choice accounts for the difference between...79%Therefore, what reasons an agent has depends on the agent's perspectiv...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: consequentializing
    View source passageHide passage
    Admittedly, no one has pre-theoretical judgments about the ranking of outcomes in the abstract. But these are evaluative rankings, and arguably such evaluative rankings concern what the agent ought (or what it is fitting for the agent) to desire/prefer (see Portmore 2011: 59–62 and 112–114). Hence, the earnest consequentializer holds that the judgment that one outcome outranks another is just the judgment that the agent ought (or that it is fitting for the agent) to prefer the one to the other.
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit