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
    Bernard Williams argues that demanding impartiality in su... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→A lifeguard must choose which group to save solely on the basis of the greater balance of good over bad, without giving extra weight to the fact that one group contains the lifeguard's friend.

    Bernard Williams argues that demanding impartiality in such cases requires 'one thought too many'—the friend's identity is itself a sufficient reason to act.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Moral agents are embedded in particular relationships that constitute their identity and ground legitimate special obligations to specific people.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Requiring calculation of impartial consequences before acting on friendship diminishes the authenticity and spontaneity essential to genuine personal relationships.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Partiality toward intimates reflects reasonable recognition that we have agent-centered prerogatives, not just agent-neutral duties to all.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Justifying partiality solely by relationship status without reference to impartial principles risks enabling favoritism that harms third parties unfairly.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The 'one thought too many' objection conflates psychological motivation with moral justification—we need not calculate consciously to act rightly.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Special obligations to friends must ultimately derive from or be compatible with impartial moral principles, not exist in complete independence from them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Connections

    2 topics

    Consequentialism1 linkedJustice & Punishment1 linked

    Related

    A lifeguard must choose which group to save solely on the basis of the greater b...Justifying partiality solely by relationship status without reference to imparti...Moral agents are embedded in particular relationships that constitute their iden...Partiality toward intimates reflects reasonable recognition that we have agent-c...
    +3 moreShow less
    Requiring calculation of impartial consequences before acting on friendship dimi...Special obligations to friends must ultimately derive from or be compatible with...The 'one thought too many' objection conflates psychological motivation with mor...

    Details

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