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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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