Notes on weighing

In my haste to get to lab last week, I forgot to print out my weighing lecture outline for you. In its stead, here is my updated list of potential weighing standards.

1] Deontology vs. Consequences - You can argue that one should consider moral rules (deontology) or consequences first. I am sure you saw a lot of this weighing in rounds today - I know I did. If you go with consequences, there are more methods for comparing competing
claims about consequences. See 2- X for these. To weigh deontology claims, you need to present a preferred source for obligations. In lab we mentioned the social contract (see Locke), procedural theories (Kant), and communitarian theories (see Etzioni) for different foundations for deontological claims.

2] Magnitude- This one is simple. You can argue that "big" impacts and more important than "small" impacts. The most obvious example would be that preventing a war may be "of a greater magnitude" than keeping T-shirt prices down.

3] Probability- One can also argue that impacts that are more likely are more important than impacts that one "may" happen. Usually this involves a comparison of a definite outcomes and an indefinite (maybe it will happen, maybe it won't) outcome.

4] Time frame - People generally prefer positive impacts that are closer in time. A burger today is better than a promise of a burger in a week (even if you have a 100% probability of getting the burger in a week).

5] Reversability - One could argue that it is more important to prevent bad things that can not be fixed after the fact. It is hard, for example, to reverse a war scenario. Short term harms to an
economy, however, may be fixable after the fact. Obviously, death is irreversible - so it is often the subject of reversability weighing.

This is not an exclusive list - but it is a pretty good start. Use these and try to think of some more!