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 Callicott's land-ethical holism implies that human individuals may be sacrificed for the holistic biotic good

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The inference commits the fallacy of composition: valuing the whole above parts does not entail that any particular part may be sacrificed for aggregate benefit.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Holism in Leopold's tradition targets anthropocentrism, not individual rights per se—the biotic good constrains human excess rather than licensing sacrifice of persons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Tom Regan's 'environmental fascism' charge misreads holism as aggregative consequentialism, when Callicott treats biotic integrity as a side-constraint, not a maximization target.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Callicott explicitly revised his position in 'Thinking Like a Planet' (2013) to incorporate a nested hierarchy of obligations, prioritizing human communities over biotic ones.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Callicott's layered deontology holds that stronger moral obligations to fellow humans override, rather than dissolve into, broader land-ethical duties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Any individual member of the biotic community ought to be sacrificed when needed for the holistic good of the community
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Human individuals are members of the biotic community
      ?

      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.