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
    Mill and Sidgwick's aggregative frameworks demonstrate th... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→In assessing the culpability of risky conduct, good consequences that risk being achieved through a 'using' of a person must be discounted and cannot justify the act.

    Mill and Sidgwick's aggregative frameworks demonstrate that impartial welfare maximization admits no principled exception for instrumental use of persons.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Aggregative utilitarianism defines rightness by total welfare outcomes, making agent identity morally irrelevant to calculation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If welfare is all that matters morally, then using someone instrumentally is permissible whenever it maximizes aggregate welfare.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Mill and Sidgwick both rejected agent-centered constraints as unjustifiable departures from impartial welfare logic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Mill explicitly endorsed individual rights and liberty as constraints on utility maximization, not mere instrumental vehicles for it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Sidgwick's dualism of practical reason permits agent-centered partiality, limiting what impartial maximization can demand of us.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Even aggregative frameworks can incorporate non-instrumental constraints if treating persons as ends generates better long-term outcomes.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Consequentialism1 linked

    Related

    Aggregative utilitarianism defines rightness by total welfare outcomes, making a...Even aggregative frameworks can incorporate non-instrumental constraints if trea...If welfare is all that matters morally, then using someone instrumentally is per...In assessing the culpability of risky conduct, good consequences that risk being...
    +3 moreShow less
    Mill and Sidgwick both rejected agent-centered constraints as unjustifiable depa...Mill explicitly endorsed individual rights and liberty as constraints on utility...Sidgwick's dualism of practical reason permits agent-centered partiality, limiti...

    Details

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