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
    Even a maximally expansive probabilistic outcomes framewo... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Even a maximally expansive probabilistic outcomes framework cannot capture the moral implications of risk-taking per se.

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

    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.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.T.M. Scanlon's contractualism identifies wrongness with what cannot be reasonably rejected, a relational property obtaining at the time of action regardless of outcome.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Imposing nonconsensual risk constitutes a wrongful relation between agent and victim even in possible worlds where no harm materializes, as Claire Finkelstein's work on risk and consent demonstrates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.No assignment of probabilities over outcome-states can represent this relational wrongness, since it is instantiated prior to and independent of any outcome distribution.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Judith Jarvis Thomson's distinction between harming and wronging entails that an agent can wrong a victim without producing any harm-constituting outcome.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Risk imposition wrongs the victim by treating her as a mere means to the agent's ends, a Kantian deontic fact that supervenes on the structure of the action, not on its causal consequences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Expected-value and probabilistic frameworks are structurally incapable of representing action-structural or deontic facts, as they assign moral weight exclusively to states of the world rather than to the normative character of agency itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The moral implications of risk-taking per se are not inherent properties of any of the potential outcomes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A probabilistic outcomes framework, even when outcomes are defined to include rights infringements, intentionality, and other mental states, only captures properties of outcomes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the moral significance of imposing risk itself — independent of which outcome obtains — falls outside the scope of any outcomes-based probabilistic framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityConsequentialism

    Related

    A probabilistic outcomes framework, even when outcomes are defined to include ri...Expected-value and probabilistic frameworks are structurally incapable of repres...Imposing nonconsensual risk constitutes a wrongful relation between agent and vi...Judith Jarvis Thomson's distinction between harming and wronging entails that an...
    +5 moreShow less
    No assignment of probabilities over outcome-states can represent this relational...Risk imposition wrongs the victim by treating her as a mere means to the agent's...T.M. Scanlon's contractualism identifies wrongness with what cannot be reasonabl...The moral implications of risk-taking per se are not inherent properties of any ...Therefore, the moral significance of imposing risk itself — independent of which...

    Similar

    Therefore, the moral significance of imposing risk itself — independen...91%The moral implications of risk-taking per se are not inherent properti...85%These distinctions cannot be captured by a framework that treats risks...82%A probability calculus treats actions as probabilistic mixtures of out...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: risk
    View source passageHide passage
    Examples are easily found that exhibit the problematic nature of this division between the two disciplines. Compare the act of throwing down a brick on a person from a high building to the act of throwing down a brick from a high building without first making sure that there is nobody beneath who can be hit by the brick. The moral difference between these two acts is not obviously expressible in a probability calculus. An ethical analysis of the difference will have to refer to the moral aspects
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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