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 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.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.