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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

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

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.