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.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1.Consequentialism's theoretical power comes from explaining moral facts through value, not merely redescribing existing verdicts using value language.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.If deontic facts ground value assignments rather than vice versa, consequentialism becomes definitionally circular and loses empirical falsifiability.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.Substantive moral theories must show *why* certain acts are right; notational tricks that preserve syntax while reversing explanatory order fail this requirement.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reasons Against

1 perspective

Reason against

1.The distinction between 'grounding' and 'defining' the value function may be metaphysically confused—both could be legitimate explanatory directions depending on context.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.A theory can be substantive without privileging one direction of explanation; bi-directional explanatory relations between values and duties are coherent and informative.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.Preserving syntax while allowing flexible explanatory direction increases theoretical flexibility rather than destroying it, enabling consequentialism to accommodate diverse moral intuitions.
?
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.

Key Terms

Consequentialization(in ethics): The process of converting or translating a moral theory into a form based on consequences, even if it wasn't originally designed that way.
Deontic verdicts(Used in the context of possibilism's method for determining moral obligations): Normative judgments about what agents are obligated, permitted, or forbidden to do.
Explanatory direction(in philosophy of explanation): Which thing explains which—for example, whether intentions explain actions, or actions explain intentions.
Substantive moral theory(in ethics): A moral theory that offers real, meaningful content about what makes actions right or wrong, rather than just being a formal system without practical insight.
Value function(in ethics and decision theory): A way of calculating or determining what is good or bad, what matters morally, or what has worth in a situation.
consequentialism(Applied to terrorism and legal punishment): The view that practices are judged solely by their consequences, such that a practice is wrong only if it has bad consequences on balance.
grounding(Drawn from contemporary metaphysics; proposed as potentially applicable to understanding the foundations of legality.): A metaphysical relation in which some entities or facts are more foundational than others, providing a hierarchical structure of the world.
syntax(Morris/Peirce semiotic framework): The form of expressions in general, encompassing phonology, morphology, and sentence structure

Connections

1 topic

Consequentialism1 linked

A theory can be substantive without privileging one direction of explanation; bi...Consequentialism's theoretical power comes from explaining moral facts through v...If deontic facts ground value assignments rather than vice versa, consequentiali...Preserving syntax while allowing flexible explanatory direction increases theore...

Details

Type: claim
Perspectives: 2 (1 for, 1 against)
Edits: 1 edit