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 Therefore, evaluative hedonism's impartial standard presupposes a motivational capacity that psychological hedonism systematically excludes.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Psychological hedonism permits indirect pursuit of others' pleasure when it produces one's own pleasure—no special motivational capacity required.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Even if psychological hedonism limits motivations, evaluative hedonism could be normatively true regardless of what actually motivates people.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The claim conflates psychological capacity with motivational justification; evaluative standards needn't match actual motivational psychology to be valid.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Psychological hedonism claims agents only pursue their own pleasure; evaluative hedonism demands impartial concern for everyone's pleasure equally.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
An impartial standard requires motivation to promote others' well-being even when it conflicts with self-interest, which psychological hedonism logically forbids.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If psychological hedonism is true, agents lack the capacity to be moved by reasons about impartial value; thus evaluative hedonism becomes unmotivatable.
?
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.