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
    Non-consequentialist theories that include prohibition di... — Carmelics
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Non-consequentialist theories that include prohibition dilemmas are implausible.

    Consequentialism
    ?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.Any deontic verdict that act-consequentialism cannot accommodate should be rejected as implausible rather than treated as a counterexample to act-consequentialism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Prohibition dilemmas are verdicts act-consequentialism cannot accommodate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Bernard Williams showed that agent-relative integrity constraints capture genuine moral phenomena that impartial consequentialism systematically distorts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Prohibition dilemmas (e.g., torturing one to save five) track the moral significance of being the agent of harm, which is not reducible to outcome comparison.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A theory's inability to accommodate a robust class of considered moral judgments counts against the theory, not against the judgments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Frances Kamm and Judith Thomson demonstrated that deontological constraints reflect structural features of rights-violations that survive reflective equilibrium across diverse cases.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If prohibition dilemmas were merely implausible verdicts, we would expect convergence toward consequentialist intuitions under philosophical scrutiny, but the literature shows persistent, theory-informed resistance instead.
      ?

      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

    Justice & PunishmentConsequentialism

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge1 linked

    Related

    A theory's inability to accommodate a robust class of considered moral judgments...Any deontic verdict that act-consequentialism cannot accommodate should be rejec...Bernard Williams showed that agent-relative integrity constraints capture genuin...Frances Kamm and Judith Thomson demonstrated that deontological constraints refl...
    +3 moreShow less
    If prohibition dilemmas were merely implausible verdicts, we would expect conver...Prohibition dilemmas (e.g., torturing one to save five) track the moral signific...Prohibition dilemmas are verdicts act-consequentialism cannot accommodate.

    Similar

    Pragmatic consequentializers also admit those theories are implausible86%Act-consequentialist counterpart theories are explanatorily inadequate...84%Act-consequentialism can accommodate prohibition dilemmas by adopting ...83%Pragmatic consequentializers readily admit the resulting act-consequen...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: consequentializing
    View source passageHide passage
    Nevertheless, the Extensional Equivalence Thesis is controversial. For instance, Campbell Brown (2011) has argued that the consequentializer cannot accommodate prohibition dilemmas: situations in which every available act is impermissible. Now, whenever there are certain deontic verdicts that the act-consequentialist supposedly cannot accommodate, there are two options for proponents of the Extensional Equivalence Thesis. One option is to concede that the act-consequentialist cannot accommodate
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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