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 non-transitive value ordering cannot form the basis of ... — Carmelics
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→We cannot exorcise the paradoxes of population ethics by giving up the transitivity of 'better than'

    A non-transitive value ordering cannot form the basis of a satisfactory answer to what one ought to choose

    ConsequentialismModality & Possibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A choice procedure that licenses cyclic preferences over outcomes permits money-pump exploitation, undermining rational agency entirely.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Sen's work on social choice demonstrates that non-transitive orderings generate systematic indeterminacy across all multi-option choice sets.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An agent facing A>B>C>A cannot identify a stopping point, making deliberation infinite and practical reason impossible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Broome's formalism shows that any coherent betterness relation must satisfy transitivity to generate well-defined rankings across populations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without transitivity, aggregative comparisons in population ethics lose their mathematical grounding in real-valued utility functions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Coupled with the standard formulation of consequentialism, a non-transitive ordering yields the counterintuitive result that no action is right in the mere addition paradox
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Consequentialism holds that an action is right if and only if its outcome is at least as good as the outcomes of all alternative actions
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Modality & PossibilityConsequentialism

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedPhilosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    A choice procedure that licenses cyclic preferences over outcomes permits money-...An agent facing A>B>C>A cannot identify a stopping point, making deliberation in...Broome's formalism shows that any coherent betterness relation must satisfy tran...Consequentialism holds that an action is right if and only if its outcome is at ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Coupled with the standard formulation of consequentialism, a non-transitive orde...Sen's work on social choice demonstrates that non-transitive orderings generate ...Without transitivity, aggregative comparisons in population ethics lose their ma...

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: repugnant-conclusion
    View source passageHide passage
    One of the questions raised by this radical proposal is whether arguments like the mere addition paradox themselves justify the rejection of transitivity or whether further arguments are needed since transitivity seems to be part of the meaning and logic of the relation “better than” (Broome 2004). However, it has been suggested that there are two “better than”-concepts, one based on intrinsic value and one based on the stance that one ought to take towards the evaluated objects (Arrhenius 2004;
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit