Where would unintended consequences fit into this?
E.g. if someone says:
“This plan would cause X, which is good. (Co) X would not occur without this plan, (I) We will be able to carry out the plan by doing Y, (L) the plan will cause X to occur, and (S) X is morally good.”
And I reply:
“This plan will also cause Z, which is morally bad, and outweights the benefit of X”
Which of the 4 categories of claim am I attacking? Is it ‘implementation’?
“This plan will also cause Z, which is morally bad” is its own disadvantage/con.
″… and outweighs the benefit of X” relates to the caveat listed in footnote 3: you are no longer attacking/challenging the advantage itself (“this plan causes X”), but rather just redirecting towards a disadvantage. (Unless you are claiming something like “the benefits of X are not as strong as you suggested,” in which case you’re attacking it on significance.)
Where would unintended consequences fit into this?
E.g. if someone says:
“This plan would cause X, which is good. (Co) X would not occur without this plan, (I) We will be able to carry out the plan by doing Y, (L) the plan will cause X to occur, and (S) X is morally good.”
And I reply:
“This plan will also cause Z, which is morally bad, and outweights the benefit of X”
Which of the 4 categories of claim am I attacking? Is it ‘implementation’?
“This plan will also cause Z, which is morally bad” is its own disadvantage/con.
″… and outweighs the benefit of X” relates to the caveat listed in footnote 3: you are no longer attacking/challenging the advantage itself (“this plan causes X”), but rather just redirecting towards a disadvantage. (Unless you are claiming something like “the benefits of X are not as strong as you suggested,” in which case you’re attacking it on significance.)