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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.