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
    Goldman's intentionally maximal act-set is limited to act... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Goldman's notion of a maximal sequence is more restricted than the possibilist's notion of a maximal act-set

    Goldman's intentionally maximal act-set is limited to act-sets the agent can intend to perform at t, such that no other act-set the agent can intend is a proper part of it

    ConsequentialismMoral Responsibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityConsequentialism

    Related

    Goldman's notion of a maximal sequence is more restricted than the possibilist's...The possibilist's maximal act-set extends to the end of one's life

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Moral Responsibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Possibilism permits any act that is part of some optimific act-set, re...85%Principle (G) implies that an agent ought to perform the act-set whose...84%Possibilism permits actions that are members of optimific act-sets eve...84%Procrastinate is obligated at t1 to perform the intentionally maximal ...83%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: actualism-possibilism-ethics
    View source passageHide passage
    Unlike (G*1) , Goldman’s revised view requires the first act to be a fully specific simultaneous act-set. Moreover, the kind of act-set that should be directly assessed is a maximal sequence. S has the ability at \(t_1\) to perform X only if S has the ability at \(t_1\) to immediately (at \(t_1)\) perform the first fully specific simultaneous act-set in \(X.\) Goldman’s (1978: 201) notion of a maximal sequence is different from the possibilist’s aforementioned notion of a maximal act-set which

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective