If wrongness were determined by comparing how principles treat each person, the doctrine of doing and allowing would collapse, since aggregative comparison ignores the moral significance of the act-omission distinction.

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

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

Act-omission distinction(as used in ethics): The philosophical idea that there's a meaningful moral difference between doing something harmful and failing to do something that would prevent harm.
Aggregative comparison(as used in ethics): A way of judging morality by adding up or combining the total effects on everyone involved, rather than looking at individual actions separately.
Doctrine of doing and allowing(as used in ethics): A moral theory that says there's an important difference between actively doing something harmful and simply allowing harm to happen when you could prevent it.
Moral significance(as the key thing being debated about actions): The quality of being important or meaningful from an ethical standpoint—what makes something right or wrong.
principles(Explicitly equated with 'invariant reasons' in the passage): Invariant reasons — moral considerations that apply consistently regardless of particular circumstances
wrongness(Offered as an example of a proposed naturalistic constitutive explanation, used to illustrate the failure of such accounts): According to meta-ethical utilitarian naturalism, for an action to be wrong is for it to fail to maximize the general happiness.

2 topics