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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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