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's account of the permissible and ... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Sanction utilitarianism does not face the problems that act utilitarianism faces regarding the fourfold moral distinction.

    Sanction utilitarianism's account of the permissible and the supererogatory depends on contingent facts about which sanctions it is utility-maximizing to enforce.

    ?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 facts about permissibility should depend on actual consequences, not abstract ideals divorced from real-world effects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Sanction structures vary rationally across societies based on what enforcement costs and benefits permit, so moral categories should reflect this.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Distinguishing supererogatory from obligatory acts requires understanding what we can realistically demand, which depends on enforcement feasibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If permissibility depends on which sanctions maximize utility, then moral wrongness becomes contingent on enforcement technology—an counterintuitive conclusion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This view implies slavery could become permissible if enforcement costs dropped and populations shifted preferences—violating our moral convictions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Permissibility should be intrinsic to acts, not derivative from contingent facts about what authorities happen to enforce at a given time.
      ?

      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

    Consequentialism1 linkedMoral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    Distinguishing supererogatory from obligatory acts requires understanding what w...If permissibility depends on which sanctions maximize utility, then moral wrongn...Moral facts about permissibility should depend on actual consequences, not abstr...Permissibility should be intrinsic to acts, not derivative from contingent facts...
    +3 moreShow less
    Sanction structures vary rationally across societies based on what enforcement c...Sanction utilitarianism does not face the problems that act utilitarianism faces...This view implies slavery could become permissible if enforcement costs dropped ...

    Details

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