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 Possibilism can generate obligations that, if acted on, would result in the worst possible outcome.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Possibilism implies that facts about how agents would freely act play no role in determining deontic verdicts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When facts about how agents would freely act are excluded from deontic verdicts, the resulting obligations may not align with what produces the best outcomes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Possibilism evaluates agents against ideal possibilities, not probable behavioral trajectories, as Zimmerman (1996) argues in 'The Concept of Moral Obligation'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When an agent is obligated to perform an ideal act they will foreseeably fail to execute, possibilism forecloses guidance toward the best achievable outcome.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An obligation that predictably produces worse outcomes than an available alternative violates the core deontic function of directing agents toward the good.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Jackson and Pargetter's (1986) prospective consequentialism shows that deontic verdicts divorced from expected outcomes systematically misdirect moral deliberation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Possibilism's ideal-state obligations can crowd out actualist second-best obligations, leaving agents with no action-guiding prescription when ideal action becomes inaccessible.
      ?

      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.