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 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.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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