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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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