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
    Wrong acts on a deontological account cannot be translate... — Carmelics
    Home/Consequentialism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Wrong acts on a deontological account cannot be translated into bad states of affairs that are subject to aggregation.

    Consequentialism
    ?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.Two wrong acts are not 'worse' than one in any normatively significant sense.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Wrongs of this kind cannot be summed into anything of normative significance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Threshold deontologists like Moore and Alexander hold that sufficiently large aggregates of rights violations can override agent-relative constraints.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If deontological constraints admit of thresholds, then wrong acts must be comparable in magnitude, implying a scalar structure subject to aggregation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The threshold cannot be identified without some implicit cardinal ranking of wrongful states, undermining the claim that wrongs resist aggregation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Scanlon's contractualism grounds wrongness in principles that no one could reasonably reject, where reasonable rejection is sensitivity to the relative strength of competing claims.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Transmission Argument (Parfit) shows that Scanlonian reasonable rejection implicitly permits interpersonal aggregation across distinct individuals' complaints.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the contractualist framework that grounds deontological constraints itself aggregates complaints, wrong acts are already implicitly translated into comparable, summable states.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Consequentialism

    Related

    If deontological constraints admit of thresholds, then wrong acts must be compar...If the contractualist framework that grounds deontological constraints itself ag...Scanlon's contractualism grounds wrongness in principles that no one could reaso...The Transmission Argument (Parfit) shows that Scanlonian reasonable rejection im...
    +4 moreShow less
    The threshold cannot be identified without some implicit cardinal ranking of wro...Threshold deontologists like Moore and Alexander hold that sufficiently large ag...Two wrong acts are not 'worse' than one in any normatively significant sense.Wrongs of this kind cannot be summed into anything of normative significance.

    Similar

    When facts about how agents would freely act are excluded from deontic...76%Jackson and Pargetter's view does not assess an act's deontic status i...76%Possibilism implies that facts about how agents would freely act play ...75%Any deontic verdict that act-consequentialism cannot accommodate shoul...74%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: ethics-deontological
    View source passageHide passage
    Patient-centered deontologies are thus arguably better construed to be agent-relative in the reasons they give. Even so construed, such deontologies join agent-centered deontologies in facing the moral (rather than the conceptual) versions of the paradox of deontology. For a critic of either form of deontology might respond to the categorical prohibition about using others as follows: If usings are bad, then are not more usings worse than fewer? And if so, then is it not odd to condemn acts that
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit