Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that 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.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Justifying partiality solely by relationship status without reference to impartial principles risks enabling favoritism that harms third parties unfairly.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Moral agents are embedded in particular relationships that constitute their identity and ground legitimate special obligations to specific people.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.