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 Bernard Williams showed that agent-relative integrity constraints capture genuine moral phenomena that impartial consequentialism systematically distorts.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Williams's distinction between agent-relative and agent-neutral may overstate the gap—sophisticated consequentialism can accommodate personal projects through indirect reasoning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Privileging agent-relative integrity risks moral arbitrariness: why one's own projects matter more than equally valid projects of others facing real harm.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Williams identifies a psychological fact about moral motivation but doesn't establish that consequentialists distort genuine moral phenomena rather than exposing uncomfortable trade-offs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.People have deep commitments to projects and relationships that feel intrinsically valuable, not merely instrumentally useful for overall welfare.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Impartial consequentialism requires sacrificing personal integrity when doing so maximizes utility, but this conflicts with how moral agents actually reason.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Agent-relative constraints (like not betraying a friend for greater good) capture moral intuitions that pure impartiality cannot adequately explain.
      ?

      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.