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 Agents cannot avoid incurring an obligation to perform an action simply because they intend to perform that action poorly

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.An agent's intention to behave badly does not change the moral requirements that apply to the agent
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Being disposed to do wrong does not allow one to avoid incurring obligations to do good
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Moral obligations are grounded in what agents are capable of doing, not in what they privately intend to do (Kant's perfect duties apply regardless of maxims).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Allowing intention to nullify obligation would let any agent escape moral requirements by simply resolving in advance to act wrongly, producing a reductio of the escape route.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Frankfurt's work on will and action confirms that intentions are revisable up to execution, so no prior bad intention can settle what one is obligated to do.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aristotelian virtue ethics holds that obligations track what the virtuous agent would do in one's circumstances, a standard external to any particular agent's motivational set.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An agent's vicious disposition is itself a moral failing that generates rather than extinguishes obligations, since Aristotle treats voluntary character formation as responsibility-conferring.
      ?

      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.