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 notational consequentializer is justified in accepting the first premise that any non-consequentialist theory can be recast as an act-consequentialist theory with equivalent deontic verdicts.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The Footian Procedure constructs outcome rankings by reading off verdicts from the target theory, making the resulting 'consequentialist' theory explanatorily circular.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A genuine consequentialist theory must derive deontic verdicts from independently specified value facts, not from antecedently fixed deontological constraints.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.When the value function is defined by the deontic verdicts rather than grounding them, the notational consequentialization preserves syntax but destroys the explanatory direction that makes consequentialism a substantive moral theory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Schroeder's 'teleologizing' objection establishes that agent-relative values required to mimic deontological constraints cannot be specified without covert reference to agent-relative obligations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If agent-relative values must presuppose agent-relative obligations to generate correct verdicts, then the consequentialized theory is not a genuine rival to deontology but merely a notational redescription of it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Notational equivalence between theories with identical deontic verdicts is insufficient for theoretical identity when the theories diverge in their modal and explanatory commitments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The Footian Procedure provides a mechanical method for generating an act-consequentialist counterpart theory for any plausible non-consequentialist target theory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The resulting act-consequentialist counterpart theory is guaranteed to yield the same deontic verdicts as the target non-consequentialist theory in every possible world.
      ?

      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.