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
    Irreversible ecological losses resist utilitarian commens... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Utilitarian ethics cannot straightforwardly serve as an adequate environmental ethic.

    Irreversible ecological losses resist utilitarian commensurability because no future pleasure-surplus can restore what is categorically gone, exposing a structural gap between utilitarian calculation and genuine environmental concern.

    ?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.

    Key Terms

    Categorically gone(emphasizing that some ecological losses are total, not just reduced)
    Completely and fundamentally lost—so lost that it belongs in a different category of existence than things that merely diminished.
    Commensurability(what the statement claims Mill achieves)
    The ability to measure or compare different things using the same standard. If things are commensurable, you can say which one is better or how they stack up against each other.
    Irreversible(describing ecological losses that are permanent)
    Something that cannot be undone or brought back to how it was before.
    Pleasure-surplus(what utilitarianism uses to judge whether an action was worth it)
    A net gain in happiness or good feelings that outweighs any pain or loss.
    Structural gap

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Explore a random proposition
    Start fresh with something unrelated.
    (as a logical inconsistency)
    A fundamental mismatch or contradiction in how something is organized—in this case, between two competing ideas that seem like they should work together but don't.
    Utilitarian / Utilitarianism(as used in ethics)
    A philosophical view that judges whether something is good or bad based entirely on whether it produces the most happiness or benefit for the most people.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Environmental Ethics1 linked

    Related

    Utilitarian ethics cannot straightforwardly serve as an adequate environmental e...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    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