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
    People conceptualize the harm case as involving a trade-o... — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→People judge the harmful side effect as intentional but the beneficial side effect as unintentional

    People conceptualize the harm case as involving a trade-off between a cost (environmental harm) and a benefit (increased company profits)

    ConsequentialismMoral Responsibility
    ?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.

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityConsequentialism

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language2 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Moral Responsibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Because the harmful side effect is conceptualized as a cost, it is judged intent...People judge the harmful side effect as intentional but the beneficial side effe...People think of costs as being intentionally incurred in order to reap some fore...The beneficial side effect (helping the environment) cannot be plausibly concept...
    +1 moreShow less
    When people read that the chairman agrees to harm the environment, they conceptu...

    Similar

    When people read that the chairman agrees to harm the environment, the...76%The beneficial side effect (helping the environment) cannot be plausib...76%Because the harmful side effect is conceptualized as a cost, it is jud...72%Including risk in an outcome tends to lower that outcome's utility70%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: experimental-moral
    View source passageHide passage
    The trade-off model (Machery 2008) disagrees with the previous models about the location of the source of the asymmetry: it locates it in the interpretation of the scenario. It proposes that when people read that the chairman agrees to harm the environment, they conceptualize the side effect harming the environment as a cost, that is, as something that is negatively valued and that one must incur if one is to reap a greater benefit. People think of this cost as being offset by the benefit increa

    Details

    Type
    premise
    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