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
    Preferences may contain irreducibly subjective elements, ... — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Preferences may contain irreducibly subjective elements, such that different players in the same role may disagree about the relative desirability of outcomes.

    Moral ResponsibilitySkepticism
    ?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.Players may disagree about the relative desirability of certain outcomes even when assuming the same role in a game
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Preferences are not fully determined by the role a player occupies in a game structure
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rational choice theory, from Von Neumann–Morgenstern onward, derives preferences from observable behavior, making them functionally objective within a decision context.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If preferences are revealed through consistent choices, apparent inter-player disagreement reflects incomplete information or bounded rationality, not irreducible subjectivity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rawls's device of the original position demonstrates that role-defined constraints can converge rational agents onto shared preference orderings, eliminating idiosyncratic variance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Preferences that dissolve under idealized rational reflection are not irreducibly subjective but merely contingently subjective, a weaker and less philosophically significant claim.
      ?

      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

    Moral ResponsibilitySkepticism

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge1 linked

    Related

    If preferences are revealed through consistent choices, apparent inter-player di...Players may disagree about the relative desirability of certain outcomes even wh...Preferences are not fully determined by the role a player occupies in a game str...Preferences that dissolve under idealized rational reflection are not irreducibl...
    +2 moreShow less
    Rational choice theory, from Von Neumann–Morgenstern onward, derives preferences...Rawls's device of the original position demonstrates that role-defined constrain...

    Similar

    Players may disagree about the relative desirability of certain outcom...89%Cautious beliefs require that a player cannot know which option her op...77%Economically rational players in novel game situations will assign pos...77%Rationality in games can be defined in terms of coherence between play...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: logics-for-games
    View source passageHide passage
    Game trees and game matrices specify the moves available to players at different moments in time. They also indicate all possible outcomes, either as cells in a matrix, or as leaf nodes in an extensive game. However, to study what players should or will do in a game, a further component is needed: players’ preferences. Such preferences need not only reflect material pay-offs or other features of outcome states. Rather, they may also relate to the process of play itself, and which moves lead to a
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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