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
    The indifference relation generated by incommensurability... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Incommensurability can be reframed as a challenge to the Transitivity axiom rather than Completeness

    The indifference relation generated by incommensurability is intransitive

    Modality & Possibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If options A and B are incommensurable, then sweetening A to a slightly better A+ still leaves A+ and B incommensurable
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Incommensurability treated as indifference yields: A is indifferent to B, and B is indifferent to A+
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Yet A+ is strictly better than A
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Incommensurability is a distinct fourth value relation (alongside better, worse, equal), not reducible to indifference, as Ruth Chang argues.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If A and B are incommensurable rather than indifferent, the inference in P2 is a category error that smuggles in transitivity violations artificially.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Rejecting the reduction of incommensurability to indifference dissolves the apparent intransitivity without requiring revision of rational preference logic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Joseph Raz's account treats incommensurability as agent-relative value pluralism, where no single metric governs comparison across value dimensions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.On pluralist frameworks, transitivity is a constraint internal to single-dimension orderings and does not apply across incommensurable value scales.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore the alleged intransitivity is not a failure of rational coherence but a correct representation of irreducibly plural normative domains.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Modality & Possibility

    Related

    If A and B are incommensurable rather than indifferent, the inference in P2 is a...If incommensurability is treated as indifference, or if 'A is at least as good a...If options A and B are incommensurable, then sweetening A to a slightly better A...Incommensurability can be reframed as a challenge to the Transitivity axiom rath...
    +9 moreShow less
    Incommensurability is a distinct fourth value relation (alongside better, worse,...Incommensurability treated as indifference yields: A is indifferent to B, and B ...Joseph Raz's account treats incommensurability as agent-relative value pluralism...On pluralist frameworks, transitivity is a constraint internal to single-dimensi...Rejecting the reduction of incommensurability to indifference dissolves the appa...Therefore indifference between A and B combined with indifference between B and ...Therefore the alleged intransitivity is not a failure of rational coherence but ...Under these assumptions, incommensurable options satisfy the indifference relati...Yet A+ is strictly better than A

    Similar

    Under these assumptions, incommensurable options satisfy the indiffere...84%If incommensurability is treated as indifference, or if 'A is at least...83%Incommensurability treated as indifference yields: A is indifferent to...74%Therefore indifference between A and B combined with indifference betw...74%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: rationality-normative-nonutility
    View source passageHide passage
    Incommensurability is most directly a challenge to Completeness, since on the most natural interpretation of \(\succcurlyeq,\) the fact that \(A\) and \(B\) are incommensurable means that neither \(A \succcurlyeq B\) nor \(B \succcurlyeq A.\) But incommensurability can instead be framed as a challenge to Transitivity, if we assume that incommensurability is indifference, or define \(A \succcurlyeq B\) as the negation of \(B \succ A\) (thus assuming Completeness by definition). To see this, notic
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit