Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that A ruler who cannot defend their kingdom without violating justice ought to abdicate
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
A ruler bears special obligations to protect subjects that override the ruler's personal moral purity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Machiavelli and Weber's 'ethics of responsibility' holds that political actors are judged by consequences for those they govern, not adherence to absolute moral rules.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Abdication that leaves subjects vulnerable to conquest or chaos is itself a grave injustice, making the original dilemma irresolvable by resignation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Walzer's 'dirty hands' thesis establishes that political necessity can create genuine moral dilemmas where all available choices violate some moral norm.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If justice-violation is unavoidable in certain defensive scenarios, the claim conflates moral tragedy with moral impermissibility, demanding an impossible standard.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Justice is a non-negotiable constraint on rulership
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
No political necessity justifies the violation of justice
?
How convincing is this?
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.