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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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