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 Kantian deontology, the most prominent non-consequentialist framework, treats rational autonomy as inviolable and explicitly prohibits treating persons as means to others' ends.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The distinction between 'using as means' versus 'using merely as means' is philosophically unclear and allows hidden consequentialist reasoning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Strict autonomy-based prohibitions can produce absurd results: refusing to harm one person even to prevent catastrophic harm to millions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Kantian theory struggles to explain why rational autonomy deserves absolute priority over other values like welfare, flourishing, or social stability.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Treating persons merely as means enables exploitation and violates their dignity as rational agents capable of self-governance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Autonomy-respecting frameworks provide clear, universalizable moral rules that don't collapse into utilitarian calculations favoring majorities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Empirically, rights-based deontology has justified essential protections: against slavery, torture, and non-consensual medical experimentation.
      ?

      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.