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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.