Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The Pali Canon's doctrine of kamma evaluates actions by their vipāka (fruits), making consequences constitutive of moral weight, not merely incidental.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
The Canon emphasizes cetanā (intention) as kamma itself, suggesting moral weight derives from volition, not post-hoc consequences.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Vipāka may be an explanatory framework for understanding consequences rather than a definition of what makes actions morally weighted.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If consequences were constitutive of moral weight, unforeseen harms would carry full moral culpability, contradicting intentionality-based ethics.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Pali texts explicitly link moral quality (kusala/akusala) to vipāka outcomes, not merely intention, suggesting consequences define ethical weight.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A moral framework where consequences are constitutive better explains why the Canon prescribes specific practices to prevent negative vipāka.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If vipāka were merely incidental, the detailed mapping of actions to fruits would be pedagogically unnecessary rather than central to doctrine.
?
How convincing is this?
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.