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 Impartialist moral theories (consequentialism and deontology) must understand friendship to be inherently biased and therefore not inherently moral.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Consequentialism permits partiality when partial behavior systematically produces better aggregate outcomes than enforced impartiality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Friendship reliably produces goods—trust, emotional development, social stability—that impartial agents could not replicate at scale.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, consequentialism can endorse friendship not despite its partiality but because of the impartially-assessed value of partial relationships.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Railton's sophisticated consequentialism distinguishes between the criterion of rightness and the decision procedure agents should internalize.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An agent who deliberates as a friend rather than as an impartial calculator may better satisfy the consequentialist criterion than one who does not.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim falsely assumes impartialist theories require impartial motivation at every moment, rather than impartial justification at the theoretical level.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Friendship essentially involves special concern for the friend.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Such special concern constitutes partiality toward the friend.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Consequentialism and deontology require impartiality as a condition of full moral appropriateness.
      ?

      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.