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
    If one cannot act so as to fulfill an intention to kill, ... — Carmelics
    Home/Consequentialism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Forming an intention to kill does not by itself breach an agent-relative obligation when acting on that intention is impossible and good consequences would result.

    If one cannot act so as to fulfill an intention to kill, the obligatory component requiring action is not satisfied.

    Consequentialism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Consequentialism

    Related

    Agent-relative obligations attach to killing in execution of an intention, not t...An obligation not to intend alone would impermissibly block forming intentions j...Forming an intention to kill does not by itself breach an agent-relative obligat...

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Consequentialism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Negligent killing lacks the requisite intention to kill.87%Forming an intention to kill does not by itself breach an agent-relati...86%Agent-relative obligations attach to killing in execution of an intent...78%If agent-relative obligations were based on intention alone (e.g., not...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: ethics-deontological
    View source passageHide passage
    By requiring both intention and causings to constitute human agency, this third view avoids the seeming overbreadth of our obligations if either intention or action alone marked such agency. Suppose our agent-relative obligation were not to do some action such as kill an innocent –is that obligation breached by a merely negligent killing, so that we deserve the serious blame of having breached such a categorical norm (Hurd 1994)? (Of course, one might be somewhat blameworthy on consequentialist

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective