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 Deontological accounts ground friendship duties in promissory, historical, or relational obligations that are categorically binding, not merely heavily weighted considerations.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Friendship duties often conflict categorically with other deontological duties, undermining claims of binding categorical status.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Many friendship obligations shift with context and emotional reciprocity, inconsistent with categorical, promissory bindingness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The distinction between 'categorical' and 'heavily weighted' lacks empirical grounding in how we actually deliberate about friends.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Promises create non-negotiable obligations distinct from mere preferences, binding us categorically regardless of competing interests.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Friendship involves implicit commitments that ground duties independent of consequences, similar to contractual obligations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Treating relational duties as merely 'weighted considerations' fails to explain why we condemn friendship betrayal even when beneficial.
      ?

      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.