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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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