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 Kant's analogy between persons as ends and spatial limits commits a category error: persons are agents with dynamic, revisable ends, not fixed termini.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The 'ends in themselves' formula concerns dignity and inviolability, not static essence—properties that don't require unchanging metaphysical nature.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Spatial boundaries (skin, property) do demarcate persons as distinct agents; dynamism doesn't eliminate the need for boundaries respecting autonomy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Revisable ends don't contradict being an end-in-itself; constraints on how we treat agents apply regardless of whether their goals evolve.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Persons possess autonomy and rational agency, enabling them to revise goals and identities throughout life, unlike fixed spatial boundaries.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Treating persons as static termini ignores their capacity for self-transformation, making the analogy metaphysically inadequate for moral theory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Moral constraints on persons should reflect their nature as purposive agents, not merely as inviolable objects with predetermined limits.
      ?

      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.