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
    Deontological theories can incorporate threshold constrai... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Deontological theories face a problem in determining criteria for permissible risk imposition that cannot be resolved using only their internal resources.

    Deontological theories can incorporate threshold constraints that define permissible risk by reference to rights-violations, not aggregate outcomes.

    ?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.Rights are inviolable constraints that cannot be traded off for better outcomes, making threshold-based limits coherent with deontological foundations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Threshold constraints prevent the counterintuitive result that violating one person's rights is justified by aggregate welfare gains to many others.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Risk tolerance can be defined by what rights-violations agents are permitted to impose, not merely by expected utility calculations across populations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Thresholds appear arbitrary: defining permissible risk by reference to 'rights-violations' presupposes an answer to what counts as violating rights.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This approach faces the collapsing objection: if thresholds protect rights absolutely, they become utilitarianism in disguise once calibrated to consequences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Threshold deontology struggles to justify why permissible risks stop exactly where they do without invoking the aggregate outcomes it claims to reject.
      ?

      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

    Consequentialism1 linkedMoral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    Deontological theories face a problem in determining criteria for permissible ri...Rights are inviolable constraints that cannot be traded off for better outcomes,...Risk tolerance can be defined by what rights-violations agents are permitted to ...This approach faces the collapsing objection: if thresholds protect rights absol...
    +3 moreShow less
    Threshold constraints prevent the counterintuitive result that violating one per...Threshold deontology struggles to justify why permissible risks stop exactly whe...Thresholds appear arbitrary: defining permissible risk by reference to 'rights-v...

    Details

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