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 Infinite demerit admits of degrees, just as Cantor showed that infinite sets can have different cardinalities and magnitudes.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Cardinality compares set sizes through bijection; no comparable mathematical operation exists for moral demerit, making the analogy structurally broken.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Infinite badness may be metaphysically maximal by definition—beyond it lies logical contradiction, unlike infinite sets which form coherent nested hierarchies.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Cantor's infinities are quantitative abstractions; demerit involves qualitative normative content that doesn't decompose into the same mathematical relations.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Mathematical infinity exhibits hierarchical structure (countable vs uncountable); moral badness may likewise admit comparable gradations without finite bounds.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Cantor's cardinality theory shows infinity isn't monolithic; similarly, infinite demerit could have degrees while remaining infinite, like ℵ₀ versus ℵ₁.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If two infinite harms can differ in magnitude (eternal suffering vs eternal meaninglessness), infinite moral culpability should admit degrees too.
?
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.