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 Consequentialism cannot properly recognize the value of friendship

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Teleological conceptions of value understand states of affairs to have intrinsic value, and recognition of such value gives reasons to bring those states into existence and promote them
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Friendship involves reasons—such as loyalty—that are not teleological in nature
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the value of friendship does not fit into the teleological conception of value presupposed by consequentialism
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Bernard Williams argued that consequentialism demands we adopt an impartial standpoint that severs the 'ground projects' constitutive of personal identity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Genuine friendship requires partial, non-fungible commitments to particular individuals that cannot be derived from impartial maximization.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Any framework that treats one's friend merely as a locally efficient conduit for global welfare-maximization fails to recognize the friend as such, only their instrumental contribution.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Railton's sophisticated consequentialism permits partiality only instrumentally, because caring directly about loved ones typically produces better aggregate outcomes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This justification makes friendship's value contingent on empirical facts about aggregate welfare, meaning friendship would be abandoned whenever impartial calculation demanded it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A relationship whose normative standing can be revoked by aggregate calculation is not friendship but a welfare-conditional alliance, which is a categorically different kind of relationship.
      ?

      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.