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 The barebones theory of rationality (requiring complete preferences) may be too strong.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Having incomplete preferences is not irrational in situations involving uncertainty.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.It is sometimes rational to suspend judgment and refuse to rank alternatives that are not well understood.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Savage's Sure-Thing Principle, foundational to expected utility theory, entails complete preferences as a rational requirement across all decision contexts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Ellsberg's paradox shows agents systematically violate completeness under ambiguity, yet these violations track coherent epistemic distinctions, not mere confusion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If coherent epistemic distinctions ground preference gaps, then completeness requirements pathologize rational sensitivity to ambiguity, making the axiom too strong.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Sen's capability approach demonstrates that incommensurable values—health vs. liberty—resist cardinal ranking without imposing arbitrary metric choices.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Requiring complete preferences over incommensurable values forces agents to adopt rankings that misrepresent their actual evaluative commitments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A rationality standard that systematically distorts genuine evaluative structure is itself irrational by the norms of reflective coherence it purports to enforce.
      ?

      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.