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 What is prudentially rational for each person individually need not be morally binding on an impartial collective standard, as Sidgwick himself acknowledged in the 'dualism of practical reason'.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If prudential rationality is truly rational, morality cannot categorically override it without morality being irrational or non-binding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The dualism suggests practical reason is self-undermining: no unified conception of rationality can accommodate genuine rational conflicts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Most moral theories assume impartial standards should constrain individual prudence; accepting their independence weakens moral justification itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Self-interested rationality aims at individual flourishing; impartial morality aims at equal consideration. These goals can conflict fundamentally.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Sidgwick showed that reason itself generates two distinct practical principles with no logical bridge between them, not merely psychological tension.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A coherent moral theory need not require that individual prudential reasoning dissolve into collective standards to remain genuinely rational.
      ?

      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.