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 Absolute side-constraints cannot accommodate threshold cases where infinitesimal harms aggregate into serious injustice without principled resolution.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Threshold indeterminacy is a general metaphysical problem, not unique to constraints; vagueness doesn't invalidate boundary-respecting principles elsewhere.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Constraints can accommodate aggregation by addressing the collective agent's joint decision, not each individual's infinitesimal contribution separately.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If aggregation dissolves constraints, no principled limits exist on permissible individual action—which paradoxically removes moral resolution entirely, not clarifies it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Infinitesimal harms below constraint thresholds become morally invisible, yet their aggregation can violate rights as severely as single large violations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Absolute constraints require decision-makers to identify a principled cutoff point, but no non-arbitrary threshold exists between acceptable and unacceptable aggregate harm.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Sorites-like reasoning shows: if one grain doesn't make a heap, then n+1 grains don't either, yet piles clearly exist—similarly, constraint-respecting actions aggregate into injustice.
      ?

      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.