Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that 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.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Dual intention—intending both mutually exclusive outcomes—violates basic logical coherence regardless of situational tragedy.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Some moral conflicts are genuinely insoluble: agents cannot fully satisfy all relevant obligations no matter what they choose.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
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.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42