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 Happiness as such is a good to the aggregate of persons

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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