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
    Happiness as such is a good to the aggregate of persons — Carmelics
    Home/Consequentialism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Happiness as such is a good to the aggregate of persons

    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.Each person's own happiness is a good to that person
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.What holds for each individual's prudential concern can be extended to the impartial concern of all persons collectively
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The inference from 'X is good for each individual' to 'X is good for the aggregate' commits the fallacy of composition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.G.E. Moore demonstrated that organic wholes can have values irreducible to the sum of their parts, so collective welfare cannot be derived by simple aggregation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.What is prudentially rational for each person individually need not be morally binding on an impartial collective standard, as Sidgwick himself acknowledged in the 'dualism of practical reason'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rights-based theorists like Nozick argue that individuals are not mere receptacles for welfare, so aggregating happiness treats persons as means rather than ends.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the aggregate's happiness can be maximized by severely harming a minority, the claim licenses outcomes that violate inviolable constraints on how individuals may be treated.
      ?

      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

    Each person's own happiness is a good to that personG.E. Moore demonstrated that organic wholes can have values irreducible to the s...If the aggregate's happiness can be maximized by severely harming a minority, th...Rights-based theorists like Nozick argue that individuals are not mere receptacl...
    +3 moreShow less
    The inference from 'X is good for each individual' to 'X is good for the aggrega...What holds for each individual's prudential concern can be extended to the impar...What is prudentially rational for each person individually need not be morally b...

    Similar

    The general happiness is a good to the aggregate of all persons83%The good of a group of people can be no other than the sum of the good...81%What is desired for its own sake by each person is desirable for its o...77%The structure of Harsanyi's aggregation theorem constrains the form of...74%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: mill-moral-political
    View source passageHide passage
    Mill goes on to say that just as each person’s own happiness is a good to that person, so too happiness, as such, is a good to the aggregate of persons. But we need not suppose that Mill is attributing a psychology, much less an egoist psychology, to humanity as a group. Instead, we can read Mill as claiming that just as the agent’s own happiness is the object of prudential concern, so too happiness as such is the proper object of disinterested or impartial concern.
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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