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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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