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 existence of a coherent non-teleological moral framew... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→On teleological views, the evaluative is prior to the deontic.

    The existence of a coherent non-teleological moral framework with genuine explanatory force defeats the claim that evaluative priority is a general feature of moral theory.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Non-teleological frameworks (e.g., contractualism) successfully explain moral obligations without positing evaluative priority as foundational.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Evaluative priority—treating values as explanatorily basic—is contingent on specific metaethical commitments, not a necessary feature of all moral theories.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Coherent explanatory force depends on internal consistency and predictive adequacy, not on which elements are ontologically primary or evaluatively prioritized.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Any adequate moral framework must ultimately justify why agents should act morally, requiring some evaluative appeal to goodness or rightness as explanatorily basic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Non-teleological frameworks covertly presuppose evaluative priority when explaining why their foundational principles (e.g., fairness, consent) matter morally.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Consequentialism1 linked

    Related

    Any adequate moral framework must ultimately justify why agents should act moral...Coherent explanatory force depends on internal consistency and predictive adequa...Evaluative priority—treating values as explanatorily basic—is contingent on spec...Non-teleological frameworks (e.g., contractualism) successfully explain moral ob...
    +2 moreShow less
    Non-teleological frameworks covertly presuppose evaluative priority when explain...On teleological views, the evaluative is prior to the deontic.

    Details

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