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 value can be coherently built into consequentialism.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Consequentialism is defined by impartial aggregation of outcomes from a neutral standpoint, as Parfit and Scheffler both argue.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Agent-relative value requires that an agent's relationship to an outcome partly constitutes its moral weight, violating impartiality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A theory that abandons impartial aggregation has abandoned the constitutive core of consequentialism, not expanded it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Samuel Scheffler's agent-centered prerogatives show that accommodating special obligations requires rejecting the consequentialist maximizing structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If agent-relative value is coherently built in, the resulting theory is extensionally equivalent to a moderate deontology, not consequentialism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A theory that replicates deontological verdicts through redefined value terms achieves terminological victory, not theoretical unification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.In competitive cases, it can maximize the good from an agent's perspective to perform an act, while maximizing the good from an observer's perspective to prevent that same act.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This divergence between agent and observer evaluations is legitimate when evaluations are agent-relative rather than agent-neutral.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If agent-relative value makes sense, it can be incorporated into consequentialist moral theory.
      ?

      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.