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 Agent-relative consequentialism captures commonsense moral intuitions in transplant-type cases better than agent-neutral consequentialism.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Agent-relative consequentialism captures transplant intuitions only by smuggling in deontological constraints that are irreducible to value rankings.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If agent-relative weights are doing the normative work, the view is consequentialism in name only, as Scheffler's asymmetry objection demonstrates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A theory that requires ad hoc relativization of value to preserve intuitions sacrifices explanatory unity without gaining genuine theoretical advantage over hybrid views.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Commonsense intuitions in transplant cases are best explained by agent-relative *constraints*, not agent-relative *values*, as Nagel argues in 'The View From Nowhere'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Recasting deontological side-constraints as agent-relative disvalues misrepresents their logical structure: constraints are not merely values the agent weighs heavily, but categorical prohibitions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Agent-relative consequentialism thus fails to accurately model the commonsense intuitions it claims to capture, because it treats as scalar what commonsense treats as lexically prior.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Agent-relative consequentialism requires observers to adopt the agent's perspective when judging whether an act is wrong for that agent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Commonsense moral intuitions hold that the doctor should not kill one patient to save five, even if doing so would reduce total killings.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Agent-relative consequentialism can justify the intuitive verdict that the transplant would be wrong for the doctor to perform.
      ?

      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.