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 proper for those who can afford it to support stran... — Carmelics
    Home/Virtue Ethics
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    It is proper for those who can afford it to support strangers in non-emergency situations

    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.People who are unable to work must rely on voluntary charity
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Those who can afford to give are capable of providing such support
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rand's ethics holds that one's own life and rational self-interest are the standard of moral value, making altruistic obligations self-contradictory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Treating strangers as ends requiring one's resources subordinates the productive individual's values to the needs of others without consent or reciprocity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A morality that demands support for strangers implicitly treats human need as a claim on others' effort, which Rand argues sanctions a form of moral parasitism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Robert Nozick argues in Anarchy, State, and Utopia that holdings acquired justly impose no further distributive obligations on their owners.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Voluntary capacity to give does not generate a moral duty to give, since 'can' does not entail 'ought' without a prior normative framework one is not bound to accept.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Imposing propriety norms on private wealth allocation violates the separateness of persons by treating individuals as means to aggregate welfare.
      ?

      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

    Virtue EthicsConsequentialism

    Connections

    1 topic

    Rights & Liberty1 linked

    Related

    A morality that demands support for strangers implicitly treats human need as a ...Imposing propriety norms on private wealth allocation violates the separateness ...People who are unable to work must rely on voluntary charityRand's ethics holds that one's own life and rational self-interest are the stand...
    +4 moreShow less
    Robert Nozick argues in Anarchy, State, and Utopia that holdings acquired justly...Those who can afford to give are capable of providing such supportTreating strangers as ends requiring one's resources subordinates the productive...Voluntary capacity to give does not generate a moral duty to give, since 'can' d...

    Similar

    We have obligations to aid and support our friends that go well beyond...78%Permanently disabled individuals who cannot care for themselves are a ...78%The argument from identification can justify charity towards strangers...77%Those who can afford to give are capable of providing such support76%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: ayn-rand
    View source passageHide passage
    At any rate, the argument from identification can also be used to justify charity towards strangers in non-emergency situations, for example, towards those who are permanently disabled and unable to care for themselves (Badhwar forthcoming). Rand concedes as much in “What is Capitalism?” (1965) where she argues that people who are unable to work must rely on voluntary charity, thus implying that it is proper for those who can afford it to support strangers in non-emergency situations. And indeed
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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