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
    If constraints can be overridden at extreme thresholds, t... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Deontological constraints cannot be rejected simply because complying with them produces worse aggregate states of affairs.

    If constraints can be overridden at extreme thresholds, then aggregate states of affairs are already doing normative work within deontological frameworks.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Deontological rules collapse into incoherence when applied mechanically at extreme thresholds (e.g., absolute truth-telling during genocide).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Acknowledging threshold exceptions requires evaluating aggregate outcomes, implicitly admitting consequentialist reasoning into deontological systems.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Rule-based frameworks that survive extreme cases do so by tacitly weighing total states of affairs, making consequentialism an invisible structural component.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Threshold exceptions can preserve deontology by refining rules themselves (e.g., 'don't lie except when it protects innocents'), without importing consequentialism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Recognizing that constraints have limits does not establish that aggregate states do normative work—only that absolute constraints were misdescribed initially.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Many deontologists accept override cases while denying aggregative reasoning can justify violations; they use agent-centered or rights-based rationales instead.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Consequentialism1 linked

    Related

    Acknowledging threshold exceptions requires evaluating aggregate outcomes, impli...Deontological constraints cannot be rejected simply because complying with them ...Deontological rules collapse into incoherence when applied mechanically at extre...Many deontologists accept override cases while denying aggregative reasoning can...
    +3 moreShow less
    Recognizing that constraints have limits does not establish that aggregate state...Rule-based frameworks that survive extreme cases do so by tacitly weighing total...Threshold exceptions can preserve deontology by refining rules themselves (e.g.,...

    Details

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