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
    Deontological constraints cannot be rejected simply becau... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Consequentialism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Deontological constraints cannot be rejected simply because complying with them produces worse aggregate states of affairs.

    Consequentialism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Arguing that constraints should be dropped to minimize harm presupposes that rights-violations and non-violations are comparable states of affairs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This presupposition begs the question against deontological constraints.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A victim of a rights-violating using may suffer less harm than others might have suffered had the rights-violation not occurred, yet this does not eliminate the constraint.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Threshold deontology (Scheffler, Moore) holds that constraints lose their binding force when consequences become sufficiently catastrophic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If constraints can be overridden at extreme thresholds, then aggregate states of affairs are already doing normative work within deontological frameworks.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore the claim that constraints cannot be rejected based on worse aggregate outcomes is itself inconsistent with how most deontologists actually apply their own constraints.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Consequentialists like Railton argue that agent-relative constraints are best explained as useful heuristics that reliably track agent-neutral value across ordinary cases.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If constraints derive their justificatory force from their tendency to produce better outcomes, then a constraint that systematically produces worse outcomes loses its normative grounding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The supporting argument's charge of question-begging applies equally to deontologists who simply assert constraint-inviolability without independent justification for why agent-relative restrictions trump aggregate welfare.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Consequentialism

    Related

    A victim of a rights-violating using may suffer less harm than others might have...Arguing that constraints should be dropped to minimize harm presupposes that rig...Consequentialists like Railton argue that agent-relative constraints are best ex...If constraints can be overridden at extreme thresholds, then aggregate states of...
    +5 moreShow less
    If constraints derive their justificatory force from their tendency to produce b...The supporting argument's charge of question-begging applies equally to deontolo...Therefore the claim that constraints cannot be rejected based on worse aggregate...This presupposition begs the question against deontological constraints.Threshold deontology (Scheffler, Moore) holds that constraints lose their bindin...

    Similar

    Arguing that constraints should be dropped to minimize harm presuppose...78%Scanlon's original contractualism allows an individual to reject optim...75%Some constraints that must be taken as givens in an optimization probl...72%This individual-complaint-based rejection permits departures from util...72%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: ethics-deontological
    View source passageHide passage
    Patient-centered deontologies are thus arguably better construed to be agent-relative in the reasons they give. Even so construed, such deontologies join agent-centered deontologies in facing the moral (rather than the conceptual) versions of the paradox of deontology. For a critic of either form of deontology might respond to the categorical prohibition about using others as follows: If usings are bad, then are not more usings worse than fewer? And if so, then is it not odd to condemn acts that
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit