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
    In assessing the culpability of risky conduct, good conse... — Carmelics
    Home/Consequentialism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    In assessing the culpability of risky conduct, good consequences that risk being achieved through a 'using' of a person must be discounted and cannot justify the act.

    Consequentialism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Good consequences must be discounted by the perceived risk that they will not occur.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Good consequences must also be discounted by the perceived risk that they will be brought about by a non-consensual using of a person's body, labor, or talents.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Consequences achieved through a using cannot be counted in determining the permissibility or culpability of an act.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Consequentialist moral accounting must treat all expected welfare effects symmetrically, regardless of the causal pathway by which they are produced.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Singling out 'using' as a discount factor smuggles in a deontological side-constraint that begs the question against act-consequentialism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Mill and Sidgwick's aggregative frameworks demonstrate that impartial welfare maximization admits no principled exception for instrumental use of persons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Thomson's own trolley cases show that redirecting lethal threats through a bystander can be permissible even when that person is causally implicated without consent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If non-consensual causal involvement does not always render an act impermissible, the 'using' discount cannot function as an absolute bar to justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Kamm's Principle of Permissible Harm suggests that what matters is the structural relationship between harm and goal, not mere non-consensual use as such.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Consequentialism

    Related

    Consequences achieved through a using cannot be counted in determining the permi...Consequentialist moral accounting must treat all expected welfare effects symmet...Good consequences must also be discounted by the perceived risk that they will b...Good consequences must be discounted by the perceived risk that they will not oc...
    +5 moreShow less
    If non-consensual causal involvement does not always render an act impermissible...Kamm's Principle of Permissible Harm suggests that what matters is the structura...Mill and Sidgwick's aggregative frameworks demonstrate that impartial welfare ma...Singling out 'using' as a discount factor smuggles in a deontological side-const...Thomson's own trolley cases show that redirecting lethal threats through a bysta...

    Similar

    If an act is morally justifiable by its balance of good and bad conseq...79%Good consequences must also be discounted by the perceived risk that t...76%Good consequences must be discounted by the perceived risk that they w...76%No justifying good exists for Hume to risk causing despair in others.76%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: ethics-deontological
    View source passageHide passage
    Notice, too, that this patient-centered libertarian version of deontology handles Trolley, Transplant et al. differently from how they are handled by agent-centered versions. The latter focus on the agent’s mental state or on whether the agent acted or caused the victim’s harm. The patient-centered theory focuses instead on whether the victim’s body, labor, or talents were the means by which the justifying results were produced. So one who realizes that by switching the trolley he can save five
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit