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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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