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 wrong to one person and a wrong to another person canno... — Carmelics
    Home/Consequentialism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A wrong to one person and a wrong to another person cannot be added together to constitute a single greater wrong.

    Consequentialism
    ?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.Wrongs are wrongs only to specific persons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.There is no person who suffers the alleged 'greater' combined wrong.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The separateness of persons prevents treating harms to different individuals as summable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aggregative moral reasoning is vindicated by our considered judgment that saving 1000 lives is better than saving 1, even if no single person bears the compound loss.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The separateness of persons is preserved so long as each individual wrong is counted and none is ignored, which aggregation does rather than violates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Taurek's anti-aggregation conclusion entails the repugnant result that a coin flip is morally equivalent to saving the greater number, which most reflective persons reject.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Parfit's 'Repugnant Conclusion' arguments show that any non-aggregative view generates worse moral outcomes than views that permit cross-personal summation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If wrongs cannot be aggregated across persons, then marginal inconveniences to sufficiently many people can never outweigh a serious harm to one, producing deeply counterintuitive verdicts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Scanlon's contractualism, though person-affecting, permits pairwise comparison of claims that functionally approximates aggregation, undermining the strict separateness-based prohibition.
      ?

      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

    Consequentialism

    Related

    Aggregative moral reasoning is vindicated by our considered judgment that saving...If wrongs cannot be aggregated across persons, then marginal inconveniences to s...Parfit's 'Repugnant Conclusion' arguments show that any non-aggregative view gen...Scanlon's contractualism, though person-affecting, permits pairwise comparison o...
    +5 moreShow less
    Taurek's anti-aggregation conclusion entails the repugnant result that a coin fl...The separateness of persons is preserved so long as each individual wrong is cou...The separateness of persons prevents treating harms to different individuals as ...There is no person who suffers the alleged 'greater' combined wrong.Wrongs are wrongs only to specific persons.

    Similar

    Wrongs are wrongs only to specific persons.80%Harms to two persons cannot be combined into a single aggregate harm e...80%There is no person who suffers the alleged 'greater' combined wrong.78%Two wrong acts are not 'worse' than one in any normatively significant...75%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: ethics-deontological
    View source passageHide passage
    Patient-centered deontologies are thus arguably better construed to be agent-relative in the reasons they give. Even so construed, such deontologies join agent-centered deontologies in facing the moral (rather than the conceptual) versions of the paradox of deontology. For a critic of either form of deontology might respond to the categorical prohibition about using others as follows: If usings are bad, then are not more usings worse than fewer? And if so, then is it not odd to condemn acts that
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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