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 indifference relation generated by incommensurability is intransitive

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.