Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The distinction between duty and expediency in sanction utilitarianism reintroduces a non-consequentialist standard to determine which sanctions are 'optimal'.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Sanction utilitarians can define 'optimal' purely consequentially: sanctions that best promote long-term welfare and social stability.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Sanction utilitarians must justify why certain sanctions maximize welfare, requiring appeal to principles beyond consequences.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.