Skip to content

Topics Thinkers Changes ContributorsLoading 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

Made within

DC&

Austin

Statements: 321,452
Perspectives: 108,905
Topics: 42

A theory that prohibits the transplant via agent-relative... — Carmelics

History Edit See Inverse

Part of a larger discussion

Challenges→Agent-relative consequentialism can justify the doctor's judgment that it would be morally wrong for the doctor to perform the transplant.

A theory that prohibits the transplant via agent-relative disvalue is functionally deontological and loses the defining consequentialist claim that outcomes alone determine rightness.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

?

1.Consequentialism defines rightness solely by outcomes; agent-relative constraints are non-consequentialist by definition.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.A theory prohibiting transplants based on agent-relative disvalue treats the agent's perspective as independently morally relevant.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.When outcomes are identical, prohibiting an action based on agent-relative factors abandons outcome-monism, which is core to consequentialism.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reasons Against

1 perspective

Reason against

?

1.Agent-relative disvalues (like integrity loss) can be incorporated into consequentialist calculations as genuine outcome components.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Prohibiting transplants might maximize good outcomes by preserving agent integrity, which produces better consequences than deontological rules.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.Distinguishing outcome-based agent effects from non-consequentialist constraints requires proving agent-relative factors aren't really outcome-relevant.
?
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.

Key Terms

Agent-relative(as used in ethics): Something that depends on who you are or what matters to you personally, rather than applying equally to everyone.
Deontological(as used in moral philosophy): An approach to ethics that focuses on whether actions follow rules and duties, rather than on whether they produce good outcomes.
Rightness(in ethics): The moral quality of an action being correct, good, or what you ought to do.
consequentialist(Shared position of Russell and Moore): One who believes that the rightness or otherwise of an act is in some way dependent on consequences.
disvalue(axiology/value theory): Something that is bad or has negative worth; the opposite of value or goodness.

Connections

1 topic

Consequentialism1 linked

Related

A theory prohibiting transplants based on agent-relative disvalue treats the age...Agent-relative consequentialism can justify the doctor's judgment that it would ...Agent-relative disvalues (like integrity loss) can be incorporated into conseque...Consequentialism defines rightness solely by outcomes; agent-relative constraint...

+3 moreShow less

Distinguishing outcome-based agent effects from non-consequentialist constraints...Prohibiting transplants might maximize good outcomes by preserving agent integri...

Details

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

When outcomes are identical, prohibiting an action based on agent-relative facto...