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
    A complete ethics of risk should maximize expected welfar... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→A complete ethics of risk must distinguish between intentional and unintentional risk exposure, and between voluntary risk-taking, accepted imposed risks, and non-accepted imposed risks.

    A complete ethics of risk should maximize expected welfare across all affected parties, rendering intent-based distinctions redundant to that calculus.

    ?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.Consequences are what ultimately matter morally; intent affects outcomes only instrumentally through motivation and behavior patterns.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Intent-based distinctions create arbitrary moral hierarchies—identical harms are judged differently based on unprovable mental states.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Expected welfare calculations provide objective, universalizable criteria that intent-based frameworks inherently lack.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Intentions causally shape behavior in ways expected-value models cannot capture; recklessness and negligence produce different risk patterns.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Pure welfarism cannot account for agency violations—coerced benefit or manipulation causing net positive welfare remains intuitively wrong.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Expected welfare calculations require precise probability/utility assignments that are epistemically intractable in real ethical decisions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Connections

    2 topics

    Justice & Punishment1 linkedMoral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    A complete ethics of risk must distinguish between intentional and unintentional...Consequences are what ultimately matter morally; intent affects outcomes only in...Expected welfare calculations provide objective, universalizable criteria that i...Expected welfare calculations require precise probability/utility assignments th...
    +3 moreShow less
    Intent-based distinctions create arbitrary moral hierarchies—identical harms are...Intentions causally shape behavior in ways expected-value models cannot capture;...Pure welfarism cannot account for agency violations—coerced benefit or manipulat...

    Details

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