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
    Agent-relative obligations require both intention and act... — Carmelics
    Home/Consequentialism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Agent-relative obligations require both intention and action (causation) to constitute human agency, not either alone.

    Consequentialism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If agent-relative obligations were based on action alone (e.g., not to kill), then merely negligent killings would breach those obligations and warrant serious blame for violating a categorical norm.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If agent-relative obligations were based on intention alone (e.g., not to intend to kill), then forming such an intention for good consequences when one cannot act on it would be impermissible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Neither of these consequences (overbroad obligation via action alone or overbroad obligation via intention alone) is acceptable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Doctrine of Double Effect, as developed by Aquinas and refined by Foot and Thomson, already separates foreseen-but-unintended consequences from intended ones without requiring action.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An agent who sincerely intends to kill an innocent person but is physically prevented violates the same moral norm as one who succeeds, since the will's corruption is complete at the moment of settled intention.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, intention alone is sufficient to ground agent-relative obligation, since moral culpability attaches to the corrupt will, not the causal history that follows from it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.H.L.A. Hart and Tony Honoré's causal responsibility framework demonstrates that negligent causation does carry genuine moral weight distinct from mere bad luck, undermining P1's dismissal of negligent killings.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If negligent killings can be graded by degree of deviation from due care, as tort law and common moral practice confirm, then action-based obligations need not be overbroad but can be indexed to culpable risk-imposition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The supporting argument's P3 therefore presents a false dilemma, since a refined action-based account avoids overbreadth without requiring the conjunctive intention-plus-action standard.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Topics

    Consequentialism

    Related

    An agent who sincerely intends to kill an innocent person but is physically prev...Doctrine of Double Effect, as developed by Aquinas and refined by Foot and Thoms...H.L.A. Hart and Tony Honoré's causal responsibility framework demonstrates that ...If agent-relative obligations were based on action alone (e.g., not to kill), th...
    +6 moreShow less
    If agent-relative obligations were based on intention alone (e.g., not to intend...If negligent killings can be graded by degree of deviation from due care, as tor...Neither of these consequences (overbroad obligation via action alone or overbroa...Requiring both intention and action in execution of that intention avoids both f...The supporting argument's P3 therefore presents a false dilemma, since a refined...Therefore, intention alone is sufficient to ground agent-relative obligation, si...

    Similar

    Agent-relative obligations attach to intentional agency, not mere caus...93%If agent-relative obligations were based on intention alone (e.g., not...86%If agent-relative obligations were based on action alone (e.g., not to...82%Agent-relative obligations attach to killing in execution of an intent...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: ethics-deontological
    View source passageHide passage
    By requiring both intention and causings to constitute human agency, this third view avoids the seeming overbreadth of our obligations if either intention or action alone marked such agency. Suppose our agent-relative obligation were not to do some action such as kill an innocent –is that obligation breached by a merely negligent killing, so that we deserve the serious blame of having breached such a categorical norm (Hurd 1994)? (Of course, one might be somewhat blameworthy on consequentialist
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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