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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Moral catastrophes, such as a million deaths, are not really a million times more catastrophic than one death.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Each person who suffers harm suffers only their own harm, not the harm of others.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Harms to two persons cannot be combined into a single aggregate harm experienced by any one entity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The badness of an outcome is not simply the sum of individual badnesses, as Parfit's 'Repugnant Conclusion' reveals aggregation produces morally absurd results.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If aggregation were valid, we would be obligated to sacrifice any individual for sufficiently large trivial gains to others, which violates basic moral intuitions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Taurek's 1977 argument establishes that numbers do not count in isolation from whose interests and relationships are at stake in a given moral situation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Each death is an absolute loss of an irreplaceable perspective, not a unit in a fungible quantity, as Nagel's account of agent-relative value demonstrates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Catastrophic scale does not multiply moral weight linearly because threshold effects and diminishing marginal significance apply to collective harms, per threshold deontology.
      ?

      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.