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
    Normative adequacy requires what Derek Parfit calls 'robu... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Even if an ideal moral code for perfectly moral humans could be conceptualized, it would be normatively inadequate

    Normative adequacy requires what Derek Parfit calls 'robustness to predictable human failure,' a criterion no ideal-agent code can satisfy by its own design parameters.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Ideal-agent codes assume perfect rationality and information; real agents predictably fail in both ways regardless of system design.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A normative framework that ignores systematic human limitations provides no practical guidance for actual moral decision-making.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Robustness to predictable failure is a feature, not a bug—it marks the difference between aspirational and actionable ethics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Ideal-agent codes can guide real agents by clarifying what we should strive toward, even if full compliance is unattainable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Demanding that norms accommodate predictable failure risks entrenching mediocrity and lowering moral expectations unnecessarily.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Some failures are epistemic, not structural—better information and reasoning can reduce them without abandoning ideal-agent frameworks.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Consequentialism1 linkedVirtue Ethics1 linked

    Related

    A normative framework that ignores systematic human limitations provides no prac...Demanding that norms accommodate predictable failure risks entrenching mediocrit...Even if an ideal moral code for perfectly moral humans could be conceptualized, ...Ideal-agent codes assume perfect rationality and information; real agents predic...
    +3 moreShow less
    Ideal-agent codes can guide real agents by clarifying what we should strive towa...Robustness to predictable failure is a feature, not a bug—it marks the differenc...Some failures are epistemic, not structural—better information and reasoning can...

    Details

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