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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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