Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that If deontological constraints admit of thresholds, then wrong acts must be comparable in magnitude, implying a scalar structure subject to aggregation.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Thresholds can be ordinal (comparative) without being scalar (quantitative): X is worse than Y without measuring magnitude.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Aggregation presupposes violations are fungible and additive, but deontological wrongs may involve incommensurable moral categories.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
A constraint could have sharp thresholds based on qualitative differences (e.g., intent vs. consequence) rather than scalar accumulation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Thresholds necessarily involve degrees: a constraint applies below threshold T but not above, requiring magnitude comparisons.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If wrongs lack scalar structure, we cannot rationally justify why one threshold applies rather than another.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Aggregation enables principled distinction between many minor violations and one catastrophic violation triggering threshold.
?
How convincing is this?
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.