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 prerogatives, as developed by Samuel Scheffler, justify harming others to protect oneself in ways that cannot be reconstructed as merely foreseeing collateral harm.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Distinguishing agent-relative prerogatives from collateral harm risks circular reasoning: any intentional harm can be reframed as 'direct protection.'
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If individuals can harm others to protect themselves beyond what impartial morality permits, this creates a race to the bottom where mutual harm escalates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Agent-relative prerogatives lack principled limits: why should self-protection outweigh others' basic interests more than others' self-protection outweighs yours?
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Moral agents have agent-relative reasons to prioritize their own projects and survival that are not reducible to impartial consequences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Self-defense involving direct harm differs morally from foreseeing collateral harm because it involves intentional protective action for oneself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Requiring agents to treat their own interests as equivalent to strangers' interests conflicts with how humans reasonably structure meaningful lives.
      ?

      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.