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
    It is not permissible to use an innocent person without c... — Carmelics
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    It is not permissible to use an innocent person without consent even to save ten innocent lives

    Justice & PunishmentRights & Liberty
    ?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.Full self-ownership holds that individuals are normatively separate
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Normatively separate individuals cannot permissibly be used to benefit others without their consent
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Pushing an innocent person to the ground without consent constitutes using that person
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Moral agent-neutrality requires that the same weight be given to each person's rights regardless of whose agency causes the violation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If five rights-violations are worse than one, then permitting five violations to avoid one treats identical rights as having unequal standing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A rights framework that systematically produces greater aggregate rights-violations cannot coherently claim to maximize respect for rights.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Thomson's trolley cases demonstrate that redirecting an existing threat differs morally from initiating new harm, collapsing strict agent-relative prohibitions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Full self-ownership, as Nozick himself concedes, underdetermines outcomes in cases where property rights conflict with catastrophic harm to others.
      ?

      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

    Justice & PunishmentRights & Liberty

    Connections

    1 topic

    Moral Responsibility3 linked

    Related

    A rights framework that systematically produces greater aggregate rights-violati...Full self-ownership holds that individuals are normatively separateFull self-ownership, as Nozick himself concedes, underdetermines outcomes in cas...If five rights-violations are worse than one, then permitting five violations to...
    +4 moreShow less
    Moral agent-neutrality requires that the same weight be given to each person's r...Normatively separate individuals cannot permissibly be used to benefit others wi...Pushing an innocent person to the ground without consent constitutes using that ...Thomson's trolley cases demonstrate that redirecting an existing threat differs ...

    Similar

    Pushing an innocent person to the ground without consent constitutes u...85%It is wrong (with respect to B) to kill the innocent81%We have serious moral qualms about harming someone without their conse...80%Normatively separate individuals cannot permissibly be used to benefit...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: libertarianism
    View source passageHide passage
    In part because it seems to lead to conclusions like these, the idea of full self-ownership is very controversial. And it’s undeniable that full self-ownership has counter-intuitive implications. A related, but different, worry concerns not duties of assistance, but cases in which a person in extreme need can be greatly benefitted as a result of using another person. Even if one has no duty to assist in those cases, may others use one’s person, without consent, to assist someone in need? Suppose
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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