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
    A duty to die need not be grounded in consequentialist or... — Carmelics
    Home/Afterlife & Death
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A duty to die need not be grounded in consequentialist or utilitarian reasoning.

    Afterlife & Death
    ?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.Hardwig's duty-to-die argument turns on the fairness of burdens imposed on others, not on the overall balance of costs and benefits.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Fairness-based reasoning is distinct from consequentialist or utilitarian reasoning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Fairness-based reasoning, when cashed out distributively, requires aggregating welfare across persons to determine burden thresholds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Any normative framework that requires interpersonal welfare aggregation to ground obligations is functionally consequentialist in structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, Hardwig's fairness argument cannot escape consequentialist foundations merely by invoking the language of fairness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kantian deontology, the most prominent non-consequentialist framework, treats rational autonomy as inviolable and explicitly prohibits treating persons as means to others' ends.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A duty to die derived from burdens imposed on others instrumentalizes the dying person's continued existence for the benefit of survivors.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.No genuinely deontological framework can coherently generate a duty grounded in the relational costs one imposes on others without collapsing into a form of other-regarding consequentialism.
      ?

      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

    Afterlife & Death

    Related

    A duty to die derived from burdens imposed on others instrumentalizes the dying ...Any normative framework that requires interpersonal welfare aggregation to groun...Fairness-based reasoning is distinct from consequentialist or utilitarian reason...Fairness-based reasoning, when cashed out distributively, requires aggregating w...
    +4 moreShow less
    Hardwig's duty-to-die argument turns on the fairness of burdens imposed on other...Kantian deontology, the most prominent non-consequentialist framework, treats ra...No genuinely deontological framework can coherently generate a duty grounded in ...Therefore, Hardwig's fairness argument cannot escape consequentialist foundation...

    Similar

    Hardwig's duty-to-die argument turns on the fairness of burdens impose...80%When the burdens imposed on others by continuing to live are sufficien...79%A person may have a duty to die in order to relieve family members or ...78%From a utilitarian perspective, harms to survivors must be weighed aga...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: suicide
    View source passageHide passage
    However, the thesis that there may exist a “duty to die” need not be defended by appeal to overtly consequentialist or utilitarian reasoning. In the course of articulating what he terms a “family-centered” approach to bioethics, the philosopher John Hardwig (1996, 1997) has argued that sometimes the burdens that a person imposes on others, particularly on family members or loved ones, by continuing to live are sufficiently great that one may have a duty to die in order to relieve them of these b
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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