Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Moral constraints derive their force from consequences for welfare, not from the intrinsic status of persons as ends.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Some acts violate persons fundamentally (slavery, genocide) regardless of aggregate welfare; consequentialism permits them if benefits suffice.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The intrinsic wrongness of treating persons as mere tools is independent of outcomes; we owe duties to individuals as ends, not receptacles.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Welfare is itself derivative from respect for persons' autonomy and rights; consequences matter *because* persons matter intrinsically.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Moral intuitions about harm align with welfare consequences: we condemn torture because it causes suffering, not due to abstract dignity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Competing moral claims become resolvable only by reference to welfare outcomes; intrinsic status provides no decision procedure.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Persons lacking capacity for welfare (unconscious beings) lack moral standing, suggesting welfare, not personhood, grounds moral consideration.
?
How convincing is this?
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.