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
    Prima facie duties, as Rossian deontology holds, are defe... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The inference from 'Act A is a lie' to 'Act A is wrong' shares key features with inductive inference.

    Prima facie duties, as Rossian deontology holds, are defeasible but not probabilistic — they bind categorically unless overridden by stronger duties.

    ?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.Moral duties feel categorically binding in everyday experience—we don't weigh promises probabilistically but treat them as absolute unless genuine conflicts arise.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Defeasibility without probabilism avoids the problem of calculating precise moral weights, which seems impossible and unfitting for ethical reasoning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This framework preserves moral realism: duties exist objectively and bind us, yet allows practical flexibility when duties genuinely conflict.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If duties are truly categorical unless overridden, the theory must explain what 'categorical' means—if it's merely 'very strong,' it collapses into probabilism anyway.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Real moral deliberation often requires weighing partial considerations: keeping a promise versus preventing serious harm involves gradual trade-offs, not binary duty-clash logic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The distinction between defeasible and probabilistic is unclear: if duty-strength determines which overrides, that strength-comparison resembles probability calculus.
      ?

      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

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedMoral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    Defeasibility without probabilism avoids the problem of calculating precise mora...If duties are truly categorical unless overridden, the theory must explain what ...Moral duties feel categorically binding in everyday experience—we don't weigh pr...Real moral deliberation often requires weighing partial considerations: keeping ...
    +3 moreShow less
    The distinction between defeasible and probabilistic is unclear: if duty-strengt...The inference from 'Act A is a lie' to 'Act A is wrong' shares key features with...This framework preserves moral realism: duties exist objectively and bind us, ye...

    Details

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