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
    The distinction between duty and expediency in sanction u... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Sanction utilitarianism is preferable to act utilitarianism

    The distinction between duty and expediency in sanction utilitarianism reintroduces a non-consequentialist standard to determine which sanctions are 'optimal'.

    ?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.Sanction utilitarians must justify why certain sanctions maximize welfare, requiring appeal to principles beyond consequences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Duty-based reasoning (e.g., proportionality, desert) operates independently of consequentialist calculus in optimal sanction design.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If 'optimal' sanctions are determined by non-consequentialist standards, sanction utilitarianism collapses into hybrid theory, not pure utilitarianism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Sanction utilitarians can define 'optimal' purely consequentially: sanctions that best promote long-term welfare and social stability.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Duty and expediency can both be evaluated consequentially—duty appears optimal when respecting it produces better outcomes than violating it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim conflates explanatory factors (why duty matters) with normative standards (what ultimately justifies sanctions), missing consequentialist reduction.
      ?

      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

    1 topic

    Consequentialism1 linked

    Related

    Duty and expediency can both be evaluated consequentially—duty appears optimal w...Duty-based reasoning (e.g., proportionality, desert) operates independently of c...If 'optimal' sanctions are determined by non-consequentialist standards, sanctio...Sanction utilitarianism is preferable to act utilitarianism
    +3 moreShow less
    Sanction utilitarians can define 'optimal' purely consequentially: sanctions tha...Sanction utilitarians must justify why certain sanctions maximize welfare, requi...The claim conflates explanatory factors (why duty matters) with normative standa...

    Details

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