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
    Sensible agents choose the lesser of two evils when those... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Consequentialism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Sensible agents choose tyranny over anarchy.

    Sensible agents choose the lesser of two evils when those are the only options available.

    ConsequentialismSocial Contract
    ?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

    ConsequentialismSocial Contract

    Connections

    1 topic

    Democracy & Governance1 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Consequentialism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Sensible agents choose tyranny over anarchy.The logic of strategic interaction leaves only two general political outcomes po...Tyranny is the lesser of two evils compared to anarchy.

    Similar

    Judgments about which outcomes an agent ought to prefer can be indepen...78%If the agent did not value themselves, satisfying the agent's needs or...76%An agent is obligated to perform the act-set whose occurrence produces...74%Individual agents are hard-wired with strategies and serve only as exe...74%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: game-theory
    View source passageHide passage
    Hobbes pushes the logic of this argument to a very strong conclusion, arguing that it implies not only a government with the right and the power to enforce cooperation, but an ‘undivided’ government in which the arbitrary will of a single ruler must impose absolute obligation on all. Few contemporary political theorists think that the particular steps by which Hobbes reasons his way to this conclusion are both sound and valid. Working through these issues here, however, would carry us away from

    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