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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Genuine special obligations must remain binding even when violating them would produce marginally better aggregate outcomes, which utilitarianism structurally cannot guarantee.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Special obligations can be grounded in consequentialist frameworks that value stable institutions and relationships—not only in aggregate utility calculation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The claim conflates utilitarianism with act-utilitarianism; rule-utilitarianism can endorse special obligations as welfare-maximizing social rules.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3."Marginally better outcomes" is empirically unrealistic; violating special obligations typically produces worse aggregate outcomes due to trust-collapse.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Special obligations (e.g., to children, spouses) create agent-centered permissions that define our integrity and identity as moral agents.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A moral framework requiring constant calculation of aggregate welfare would undermine the stable, trust-based relationships that special obligations require.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Utilitarianism's aggregative logic treats all persons interchangeably, making it structurally unable to preserve the partiality that special obligations demand.
      ?

      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