Originally posted by Starlight
View Post
In my observation, teleological reasoning tends to be pretty arbitrary. Your implied claim that teleology can be used to adjudicate competing value-claims (as if they are something that could even be adjudicated) has me suspecting that I would find your teleological claim itself to be utterly arbitrary.
The difference is that for a teleological approach there is reasoning about what are the goods and how the goods lead to flourishing to determine if certain alleged 'goods' are actually goods (or have the valuation attributed to them by certain parties). For a primarily empirical approach that does not go into teleology you can't explore why certain goods lead to flourishing because that requires teleological reasoning, rather you just assume a certain set of goods does lead to flourishing (possibly with assumed valuations that some goods are more important than others) based on (at best) a cherrypicked 'consensus'.
Comment