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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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