The inference from 'Act A is a lie' to 'Act A is wrong' s... — Carmelics

History Edit See Inverse

The inference from 'Act A is a lie' to 'Act A is wrong' shares key features with inductive inference.

Moral Responsibility Truth & Knowledge

?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.Like a standard inductive argument, the strength of the inference from 'Act A is a lie' to 'Act A is wrong' is not all-or-nothing.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Additional premises can weaken or strengthen the inference, as is characteristic of inductive reasoning.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reasons Against

2 perspectives

Reason against 1 of 2

?

1.Prima facie duties, as Rossian deontology holds, are defeasible but not probabilistic — they bind categorically unless overridden by stronger duties.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Inductive inference is weakened by counterexamples proportionally, but a prima facie wrong remains fully obligatory until a specific defeater obtains.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.The logical structure of defeasibility in moral reasoning is thus closer to default logic than to Bayesian probability revision.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reason against 2 of 2

?

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.