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 non-maximizing duty of benevolence can be balanced with... — Carmelics
    Home/Virtue Ethics
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A non-maximizing duty of benevolence can be balanced with special obligations without contradiction.

    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.Unless the duty of benevolence is a maximizing duty, it does not demand that all resources and attention be directed toward maximizing overall welfare.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A non-maximizing duty can coexist with other duties that direct additional attention toward intimates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Special obligations direct additional benefits toward intimates without violating a non-maximizing duty of benevolence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Any duty of benevolence, even non-maximizing, requires a principled threshold distinguishing permissible partiality from morally arbitrary favoritism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Special obligations grounded in mere relationship (kinship, friendship) cannot supply this threshold without smuggling in agent-relative value incompatible with impartialist benevolence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A framework that cannot specify when partiality becomes impermissible harbors a latent contradiction, not a genuine balance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Peter Singer's drowning child argument demonstrates that the moral weight of preventing serious harm does not diminish based on proximity or relational distance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If benevolence tracks genuine moral urgency, directing disproportionate resources toward intimates in the presence of greater unmet need elsewhere violates the duty's own internal logic regardless of whether it is labeled 'maximizing'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Labeling benevolence 'non-maximizing' strategically lowers its demands without independent moral justification, making the supposed 'balance' a rhetorical rather than principled resolution.
      ?

      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

    Virtue EthicsConsequentialism

    Connections

    1 topic

    Moral Responsibility2 linked

    Related

    A framework that cannot specify when partiality becomes impermissible harbors a ...A non-maximizing duty can coexist with other duties that direct additional atten...Any duty of benevolence, even non-maximizing, requires a principled threshold di...If benevolence tracks genuine moral urgency, directing disproportionate resource...
    +5 moreShow less
    Labeling benevolence 'non-maximizing' strategically lowers its demands without i...Peter Singer's drowning child argument demonstrates that the moral weight of pre...Special obligations direct additional benefits toward intimates without violatin...Special obligations grounded in mere relationship (kinship, friendship) cannot s...Unless the duty of benevolence is a maximizing duty, it does not demand that all...

    Similar

    Unless the duty of benevolence is a maximizing duty, it does not deman...89%Special obligations direct additional benefits toward intimates withou...86%A non-maximizing duty can coexist with other duties that direct additi...81%Human benevolence is an appropriate or fitting response to reality.77%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: special-obligations
    View source passageHide passage
    One potential response is to insist that upon acquiring special obligations, a moral agent does not owe less to other persons, but, rather, simply owes more to her intimates. Thus, in addition to our duty of benevolence, we have, as Ross claimed, special obligations to those who “stand to me in the relation of promisee to promiser, of creditor to debtor, of wife to husband, of child to parent, of friend to friend, of fellow countryman to fellow countryman, and the like” (19). The more such relat
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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