Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The logical structure of defeasibility in moral reasoning is thus closer to default logic than to Bayesian probability revision.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Moral agents actually weight competing considerations by strength and likelihood, which is precisely what Bayesian revision models.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Default logic struggles with moral conflicts where rules collide; Bayesian frameworks naturally resolve this via probabilistic trade-offs.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The claim conflates the *structure* of rules with the *reasoning process*; we apply defaults, but update them via something Bayesian-like.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Moral exceptions (e.g., lying is wrong, except to protect innocents) operate via rule-and-exception logic, which default logic models directly.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Moral reasoning often requires non-monotonic inference: adding new information can retract previous conclusions without probabilistic updating.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Default logic captures the normative character of moral rules better than probability, which treats all conclusions as degrees of belief.
?
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.