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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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