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 Forming an intention to kill does not by itself breach an agent-relative obligation when acting on that intention is impossible and good consequences would result.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Intentions constitute the moral character of agency; Kant and Anscombe both hold that intending to kill already corrupts the will regardless of feasibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An agent-relative obligation against killing derives from the inviolability of persons as ends, which is violated in intention, not merely in action.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Permitting consequence-justified intentions when action is impossible creates a standing disposition to kill that degrades moral character and erodes the absolute constraint.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Warren Quinn's doctrine of double effect analysis establishes that agents bear responsibility for what they intend, since intentions define the plan they make themselves party to.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The claim that impossibility of action dissolves the wrongness of the intention proves too much, licensing conditional intentions to kill whenever circumstances might change.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Agent-relative obligations attach to killing in execution of an intention, not to bare intention formation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If one cannot act so as to fulfill an intention to kill, the obligatory component requiring action is not satisfied.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An obligation not to intend alone would impermissibly block forming intentions justified by good consequences when action is impossible.
      ?

      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.