Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Capacity to suffer, not capacity for reciprocity, is the morally relevant threshold for being owed justice (Bentham, Singer).
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Sentience alone cannot explain why we owe *justice* specifically—justice requires reciprocal social participation and rule-following capacity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Capacity to suffer is present in simple organisms, but this doesn't entail they deserve justice claims, suggesting suffering is insufficient.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Reciprocity grounds moral agency and distinguishes justice systems from mere welfare provisions; removing it collapses justice into general beneficence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Sentience (capacity to suffer) is observable and measurable across species, making it a more objective moral foundation than reciprocity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Reciprocity-based ethics wrongly excludes infants, the severely cognitively disabled, and comatose persons who deserve moral protection.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
A being's ability to experience pain and distress directly creates duties in us, regardless of whether they can reciprocate moral obligations.
?
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.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42