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
    Prohibition dilemmas are verdicts act-consequentialism ca... — Carmelics
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Non-consequentialist theories that include prohibition dilemmas are implausible.

    Prohibition dilemmas are verdicts act-consequentialism cannot accommodate.

    ConsequentialismJustice & Punishment
    ?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

    Justice & PunishmentConsequentialism

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge1 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Justice & Punishment
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Any deontic verdict that act-consequentialism cannot accommodate should be rejec...Non-consequentialist theories that include prohibition dilemmas are implausible.

    Similar

    Any deontic verdict that act-consequentialism cannot accommodate shoul...82%Proximate consequentialism makes it easier for agents and observers to...81%Act-consequentialism holds that an act is permissible if and only if i...81%Proximate consequentialism holds that the moral rightness of an act is...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: consequentializing
    View source passageHide passage
    Nevertheless, the Extensional Equivalence Thesis is controversial. For instance, Campbell Brown (2011) has argued that the consequentializer cannot accommodate prohibition dilemmas: situations in which every available act is impermissible. Now, whenever there are certain deontic verdicts that the act-consequentialist supposedly cannot accommodate, there are two options for proponents of the Extensional Equivalence Thesis. One option is to concede that the act-consequentialist cannot accommodate

    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