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 merely negligent killing does not breach an agent-relat... — Carmelics
    Home/Consequentialism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A merely negligent killing does not breach an agent-relative obligation not to kill an innocent in execution of an intention to kill.

    Consequentialism
    ?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.Agent-relative obligations attach to intentional agency, not mere causation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Negligent killing lacks the requisite intention to kill.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Serious blame for breaching a categorical norm requires both intention and action in execution of that intention.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Obligations of due care are agent-relative duties that bind agents precisely because negligence reflects culpable disregard for others' lives.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A driver who recklessly ignores pedestrians breaches a special obligation grounded in their role as agent, not merely a general duty of beneficence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If agent-relative obligations track the agent's normative relationship to potential victims, negligent indifference can violate that relationship as surely as intention.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Foot and Thomson's distinction between doing and allowing shows that what matters morally is whether the agent's conduct was the operative cause, not the mental mode of agency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Frances Kamm's 'Principle of Permissible Harm' grounds agent-relative constraints in the structure of the harmful act itself, not exclusively in the agent's intention.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Restricting agent-relative obligations to intentional killings arbitrarily exempts reckless and negligent conduct that equally expresses the agent's failure to respect the victim's inviolability.
      ?

      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

    Consequentialism

    Related

    A driver who recklessly ignores pedestrians breaches a special obligation ground...Agent-relative obligations attach to intentional agency, not mere causation.Foot and Thomson's distinction between doing and allowing shows that what matter...Frances Kamm's 'Principle of Permissible Harm' grounds agent-relative constraint...
    +5 moreShow less
    If agent-relative obligations track the agent's normative relationship to potent...Negligent killing lacks the requisite intention to kill.Obligations of due care are agent-relative duties that bind agents precisely bec...Restricting agent-relative obligations to intentional killings arbitrarily exemp...Serious blame for breaching a categorical norm requires both intention and actio...

    Similar

    Forming an intention to kill does not by itself breach an agent-relati...90%If agent-relative obligations were based on action alone (e.g., not to...88%If agent-relative obligations were based on intention alone (e.g., not...83%Agent-relative obligations attach to killing in execution of an intent...83%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: ethics-deontological
    View source passageHide passage
    By requiring both intention and causings to constitute human agency, this third view avoids the seeming overbreadth of our obligations if either intention or action alone marked such agency. Suppose our agent-relative obligation were not to do some action such as kill an innocent –is that obligation breached by a merely negligent killing, so that we deserve the serious blame of having breached such a categorical norm (Hurd 1994)? (Of course, one might be somewhat blameworthy on consequentialist
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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