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
    Deontological theories face a problem in determining crit... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

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

    ConsequentialismMoral Responsibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Drawing the line between reasonable and unreasonable risk imposition requires appealing to concepts such as probabilities and the size of benefits obtained by taking a risk.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Probabilities and benefit-size calculations are not part of the internal resources of deontological theories.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Deontological theories can incorporate threshold constraints that define permissible risk by reference to rights-violations, not aggregate outcomes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Judith Jarvis Thomson's work on rights and risks demonstrates that whether an act imposes a rights-violating risk is determined by the nature of the imposition, not its expected utility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A theory that appeals to probability only to specify when a rights-boundary has been crossed remains internally deontological, not consequentialist.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.T.M. Scanlon's contractualist framework generates risk-permissibility criteria from principles no one could reasonably reject, without appealing to aggregate benefit calculations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Reasonable rejectability is a distinctly non-consequentialist criterion that can adjudicate competing risk impositions by reference to individual standpoints rather than summed welfare.
      ?

      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

    Moral ResponsibilityConsequentialism

    Related

    A theory that appeals to probability only to specify when a rights-boundary has ...Deontological theories can incorporate threshold constraints that define permiss...Drawing the line between reasonable and unreasonable risk imposition requires ap...Judith Jarvis Thomson's work on rights and risks demonstrates that whether an ac...
    +3 moreShow less
    Probabilities and benefit-size calculations are not part of the internal resourc...Reasonable rejectability is a distinctly non-consequentialist criterion that can...T.M. Scanlon's contractualist framework generates risk-permissibility criteria f...

    Similar

    A limit must be drawn between reasonable and unreasonable impositions ...75%Moral analysis of risk requires attending to the mental states of the ...74%Moral theory is needed in part because of its power to help weigh vari...74%Drawing the line between reasonable and unreasonable risk imposition r...73%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: risk
    View source passageHide passage
    The problem of dealing with risks in deontological theories is similar to the corresponding problem in rights-based theories. The duty not to harm other people can be extended to a duty not to perform actions that increase their risk of being harmed. However, society as we know it is not possible without exceptions to this rule. The determination of criteria for such exceptions is problematic in the same way as for rights-based theories. All reasonable systems of moral obligations will contain a
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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