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 Impartiality is constitutive of the Utility principle, not merely a supplement to it

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Bentham's dictum was introduced as a procedural aggregation rule governing how to sum utilities, not as a constraint internal to utility itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A principle can be maximized partial or impartially; impartiality governs the application procedure, not the identity of the maximand.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Mill's own proof treats utility as the sole object of desire prior to any interpersonal accounting, showing utility is defined independently of impartiality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Sidgwick distinguished the 'universalistic' reading of utilitarianism from the concept of welfare itself, treating impartiality as a separate axiom of rational benevolence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If impartiality were constitutive of utility, violations of impartiality would be logical contradictions rather than moral failures—an implausibly strong claim Mill's text does not support.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The Greatest-Happiness Principle is a mere form of words without rational signification unless one person's happiness, supposed equal in degree, is counted for exactly as much as another's
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bentham's dictum 'everybody to count for one, nobody for more than one' is an explanatory commentary written under the principle of utility
      ?

      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.