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 Hare's prescriptivism shows that universalizability permits role-differentiated prescriptions, so approving harm to others does not entail approving harm to oneself in relevantly different circumstances.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If I universalize my principle to all relevantly similar agents in relevantly similar circumstances, role-differences collapse into arbitrary distinctions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Allowing role-differentiated prescriptions risks disguising self-interested bias as principled universalizability without genuine moral constraint.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.True universalizability demands imaginative adoption of all positions; role-based exemptions undermine this requirement and weaken moral impartiality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Universalizability requires consistency in principles, not identical outcomes across different agent roles or circumstances.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hare's prescriptivism allows role-specific duties (doctor vs. patient) without violating universalizability if principles apply consistently.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Accepting harm in one role while rejecting it in another is coherent if the role-differentiation itself is universalizable.
      ?

      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.