The Limits of Asymptotic Deontology: Risk, Scale, and Hard Rules

Does repeating a risky exception eventually justify a hard rule against it? We challenge the inference from scale alone to prohibition. A lifetime limit on critical failure can constrain continued exceptions, but the conclusion depends on how hazards persist, whose risks are assessed together, and whether the standing rule is itself acceptable. Learning, shared defects, and policy lotteries expose distinct limits of the argument. We develop an account of the conditions under which risk-compliant actions can be jointly authorized as a defensible system of permissions. Compliance assessed in isolation need not survive joint authorization, renewal across time, or reassessment under a selected regime. Lower certificates can exclude policies, while upper certificates support permission under the chosen criterion. Turning those assessments into authorizations requires a justified scope, allocation, and point of assessment. Continuing commitments also give institutions reason to preserve feasible protection for future claimants. Hard rules emerge as one conditional response, alongside quotas, coordinated permissions, and evidence-responsive revision.