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
    Sanction utilitarianism is internally inconsistent — Carmelics
    Home/Consequentialism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Sanction utilitarianism is internally inconsistent

    Consequentialism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Sanction utilitarianism defines wrongness via what ought to be sanctioned, but 'ought' here must invoke a prior moral standard independent of sanctions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If that prior standard is direct utility maximization, then sanctions are redundant; if it is something else, the theory is pluralist, not utilitarian.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Either horn of this dilemma exposes a foundational inconsistency: the theory cannot be both complete and purely sanction-based.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Bradley's regress objection in Ethical Studies shows that any system grounding obligation in external sanctions generates an infinite demand for justifying each sanctioning act.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Mill's proposed fix — applying direct utilitarianism only to sanctions — creates a two-tier system where the meta-level criterion contradicts the object-level criterion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A genuinely unified moral theory, as Sidgwick argued in The Methods of Ethics, cannot apply structurally different decision procedures at different levels without collapsing into theoretical incoherence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Sanction utilitarianism avoids the infinite regress of sanctions by giving a direct utilitarian answer to when first-order sanctions should be applied — namely, a sanction should be applied if and only if doing so is optimal
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.But the general criterion of sanction utilitarianism is indirect — any action is wrong to which one ought to attach sanctions
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Applying a direct utilitarian standard to the application of sanctions is inconsistent with the indirect utilitarian structure sanction utilitarianism uses to evaluate all other actions
      ?

      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

    Consequentialism

    Connections

    1 topic

    Justice & Punishment3 linked

    Related

    A genuinely unified moral theory, as Sidgwick argued in The Methods of Ethics, c...Applying a direct utilitarian standard to the application of sanctions is incons...Bradley's regress objection in Ethical Studies shows that any system grounding o...But the general criterion of sanction utilitarianism is indirect — any action is...
    +5 moreShow less
    Either horn of this dilemma exposes a foundational inconsistency: the theory can...If that prior standard is direct utility maximization, then sanctions are redund...Mill's proposed fix — applying direct utilitarianism only to sanctions — creates...Sanction utilitarianism avoids the infinite regress of sanctions by giving a dir...Sanction utilitarianism defines wrongness via what ought to be sanctioned, but '...

    Similar

    Sanction utilitarianism is internally inconsistent because it combines...94%Sanction utilitarianism is inconsistent with act utilitarianism.85%Act utilitarianism implies that an agent does wrong every time the age...77%Sanction utilitarianism does not face the problems that act utilitaria...75%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: mill-moral-political
    View source passageHide passage
    Moreover, sanction utilitarianism appears to have disadvantages that act utilitarianism does not. One such problem derives from its hybrid structure. Sanction utilitarianism is impurely indirect. For while it provides an indirect utilitarian theory of duty, the account it provides of when sanctions should be applied to conduct is direct—it depends upon the consequences of applying sanctions. Sanction utilitarianism provides an indirect utilitarian account of the conditions under which an action—
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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