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 categorical imperative establishes that persons must be treated as ends in themselves, making punishment for unchosen inherited sin categorically impermissible.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Inherited consequences (poverty, trauma, disease) are permissible even though unchosen; natural and social inheritance aren't categorically impermissible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The categorical imperative concerns maxims of action, not metaphysical doctrines; inherited sin may describe anthropological fact rather than prescribe punishment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Treating persons as ends doesn't require ignoring natural causal chains; corrective processes addressing inherited conditions can respect dignity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Treating persons as ends requires respecting their autonomy and moral agency, which inherited sin denies by imposing liability for others' choices.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The categorical imperative forbids using persons merely as means; punishing innocent descendants uses them to satisfy justice or deterrence for past acts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Moral responsibility requires causal agency; those who didn't commit sin lack the agency necessary for just punishment to apply to them.
      ?

      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.