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
    It is not rational to plan on accomplishing both of two o... — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    It is not rational to plan on accomplishing both of two objectives known to be incompatible

    Moral ResponsibilityTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Intentions that figure in rational planning should agglomerate
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Agglomeration requires that intentions fit together in a coherent larger plan
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Two objectives known to be incompatible cannot fit together in a coherent larger plan
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Agents can rationally hold intentions under uncertainty about which objective will prove feasible, deferring resolution until more information emerges.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Michael Bratman's own planning theory allows for intentions that are 'partial plans,' leaving open sub-options that may turn out incompatible only at execution time.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.What appears incompatible at the planning stage may be compatible under future contingencies the agent has rational grounds to anticipate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Ruth Barcan Marcus argued that moral dilemmas involve genuine conflicts where an agent ought to fulfill each of two obligations that cannot both be fulfilled.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If ought implies rational intention, then an agent in a genuine dilemma is rationally required to intend both conflicting objectives simultaneously.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The irrationality lies in the tragic situation itself, not in the agent's dual intention, which is the only response proportionate to the moral reality.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    Agents can rationally hold intentions under uncertainty about which objective wi...Agglomeration requires that intentions fit together in a coherent larger planIf ought implies rational intention, then an agent in a genuine dilemma is ratio...Intentions that figure in rational planning should agglomerate
    +5 moreShow less
    Michael Bratman's own planning theory allows for intentions that are 'partial pl...Ruth Barcan Marcus argued that moral dilemmas involve genuine conflicts where an...The irrationality lies in the tragic situation itself, not in the agent's dual i...Two objectives known to be incompatible cannot fit together in a coherent larger...What appears incompatible at the planning stage may be compatible under future c...

    Similar

    Two objectives known to be incompatible cannot fit together in a coher...84%It can be rational to aim at a pair of ends one knows to be jointly un...78%It is irrational to intend to φ and intend to Θ while believing it is ...76%Theoretical rationality should not automatically be overridden by prac...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: action
    View source passageHide passage
    (8) above is an especially clear example in which the second reading is required. The second reading does entail that the agent intends to F, and it is only the first that, according to Bratman's argument, does not. Therefore, Bratman thinks that we need to distinguish intention as an aim or goal of actions and intention as a distinctive state of commitment to future action, a state that results from and subsequently constrains our practical endeavors as planning agents. It can be rational to ai
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit