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 wider consequentialist approach may be more compatible ... — Carmelics
    Home/Environmental Ethics
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A wider consequentialist approach may be more compatible with environmental ethics than utilitarian ethics.

    Environmental Ethics
    ?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.Wider consequentialism attributes intrinsic value not only to pleasure or satisfaction but also to objects and processes in the natural environment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Utilitarian ethics is limited to attributing intrinsic value to pleasure or interest satisfaction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Utilitarian frameworks can aggregate welfare across sentient non-human animals, already extending moral concern well beyond anthropocentric limits.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism grounds robust environmental protections by including the interests of all sentient beings affected by ecological harm.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim conflates utilitarianism's theoretical foundations with its practical scope, since sentient-inclusive utility calculations can oppose most environmentally destructive practices.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wider consequentialism's attribution of intrinsic value to non-sentient natural objects faces the 'location problem': intrinsic value requires a valuing subject, as argued by Korsgaard and others.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If intrinsic value in nature must ultimately be grounded in conscious experience to be action-guiding, wider consequentialism collapses back into a sentience-centered framework indistinguishable from sophisticated utilitarianism.
      ?

      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

    Environmental Ethics

    Related

    If intrinsic value in nature must ultimately be grounded in conscious experience...Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism grounds robust environmental protection...The claim conflates utilitarianism's theoretical foundations with its practical ...Utilitarian ethics is limited to attributing intrinsic value to pleasure or inte...
    +3 moreShow less
    Utilitarian frameworks can aggregate welfare across sentient non-human animals, ...Wider consequentialism attributes intrinsic value not only to pleasure or satisf...Wider consequentialism's attribution of intrinsic value to non-sentient natural ...

    Similar

    Wider consequentialism attributes intrinsic value not only to pleasure...77%Utilitarian ethics cannot straightforwardly serve as an adequate envir...75%Even a consequentialist framework permits trade-offs of intrinsic valu...74%Virtue ethics need not be unavoidably anthropocentric and can support ...71%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: ethics-environmental
    View source passageHide passage
    As the utilitarian focus is the balance of pleasure and pain as such, the question of to whom a pleasure or pain belongs is irrelevant to the calculation and assessment of the rightness or wrongness of actions. Hence, the eighteenth century utilitarian Jeremy Bentham (1789), and later Peter Singer (1993), have argued that the interests of all the sentient beings (i.e., beings who are capable of experiencing pleasure or pain)—including non-human ones—affected by an action should be taken equally
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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