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 gimmicky nature of act-consequentialist counterpart t... — Carmelics
    Home/Consequentialism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The gimmicky nature of act-consequentialist counterpart theories produced by consequentializing is no objection to pragmatic consequentializing

    Consequentialism
    ?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.Pragmatic consequentializers readily admit the resulting act-consequentialist counterpart theories are gimmicky
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Pragmatic consequentializers also admit those theories are implausible
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Pragmatic consequentializers construct the act-consequentialist counterpart theories only for certain pragmatic purposes and do not endorse them
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Philosophical methodology requires that tools used to vindicate a framework must themselves be defensible, a constraint Quine and Goodman both emphasized regarding reflective equilibrium.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Constructing an acknowledged gimmick to serve pragmatic ends collapses the distinction between genuine theoretical unification and mere formal manipulation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the counterpart theory is discarded after serving its pragmatic purpose, consequentialism gains no real explanatory unification over rival frameworks like Ross's prima facie duties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A theoretical construction that is admitted to be both gimmicky and implausible cannot serve as a legitimate explanatory or justificatory basis for any philosophical project.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Pragmatic consequentializing derives its normative authority from the act-consequentialist counterpart theories it constructs, making their implausibility self-undermining.
      ?

      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

    Consequentialism

    Connections

    1 topic

    Skepticism1 linked

    Related

    A theoretical construction that is admitted to be both gimmicky and implausible ...Constructing an acknowledged gimmick to serve pragmatic ends collapses the disti...If the counterpart theory is discarded after serving its pragmatic purpose, cons...Philosophical methodology requires that tools used to vindicate a framework must...
    +5 moreShow less
    Pragmatic consequentializers also admit those theories are implausiblePragmatic consequentializers construct the act-consequentialist counterpart theo...Pragmatic consequentializers readily admit the resulting act-consequentialist co...Pragmatic consequentializing derives its normative authority from the act-conseq...Rejecting a theory one constructed for pragmatic purposes is consistent with the...

    Similar

    The gimmicky nature of act-consequentialist counterpart theories produ...96%Pragmatic consequentializers readily admit the resulting act-consequen...95%Pragmatic consequentializers construct the act-consequentialist counte...92%An act-consequentialist counterpart theory that revises some pre-theor...88%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: consequentializing
    View source passageHide passage
    But the fact that the resulting act-consequentialist counterpart theories are gimmicky (and, thus, ad hoc) is no objection to either notational consequentializing or pragmatic consequentializing. Such consequentializers will readily concede that these resulting theories are gimmicky. The notational consequentializer will argue that all extensionally equivalent theories are gimmicky representations of each other in that they are all just arbitrarily different notational variants on the same moral
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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