Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that If constraints are grounded in the particularity of individual projects and relationships, they are agent-relative and defeasible, not absolute and universal.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Some constraints (prohibitions on torture, slavery) seem binding regardless of individual projects, suggesting universality is possible.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Agent-relative constraints risk incoherence: if constraints depend only on my projects, why should you accept my claims against you?
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Defeasibility requires standards for when constraints yield; without universal principles, defeaters become arbitrary.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Moral obligations arise from commitments we make in specific relationships; a promise binds me to you, not universally to all.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Universal constraints cannot account for genuine moral dilemmas where two absolute duties conflict without resolution.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Empirically, people revise their core values when their life projects change, suggesting constraints are tied to particular contexts.
?
How convincing is this?
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.