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 irrationality lies in the tragic situation itself, no... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→It is not rational to plan on accomplishing both of two objectives known to be incompatible

    The irrationality lies in the tragic situation itself, not in the agent's dual intention, which is the only response proportionate to the moral reality.

    ?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.Some moral conflicts are genuinely insoluble: agents cannot fully satisfy all relevant obligations no matter what they choose.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A proportionate response to insoluble dilemmas requires acknowledging all moral claims simultaneously, which dual intention accomplishes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Claiming the agent's reasoning is irrational deflects blame from the tragic situation that created the impossible choice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Dual intention—intending both mutually exclusive outcomes—violates basic logical coherence regardless of situational tragedy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An agent can acknowledge moral weight without intending contradictories; proportionate response doesn't require rational incoherence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Locating irrationality in the situation rather than the agent's response risks obscuring how agents must still choose rationally.
      ?

      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

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedMoral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    A proportionate response to insoluble dilemmas requires acknowledging all moral ...An agent can acknowledge moral weight without intending contradictories; proport...Claiming the agent's reasoning is irrational deflects blame from the tragic situ...Dual intention—intending both mutually exclusive outcomes—violates basic logical...
    +3 moreShow less
    It is not rational to plan on accomplishing both of two objectives known to be i...Locating irrationality in the situation rather than the agent's response risks o...Some moral conflicts are genuinely insoluble: agents cannot fully satisfy all re...

    Details

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