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 Partiality toward one's own kind is a defensible moral phenomenon grounded in special obligations, as argued by Bernard Williams and communitarian thinkers.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Special obligations cannot justify systematic inequality; partiality risks entrenching nepotism, discrimination, and exclusion of outsiders.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Moral status depends on relevant characteristics (sentience, interests), not group membership; partiality based on kinship lacks principled justification.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Claiming partiality is 'defensible' conflates psychological motivation with moral justification; we act partially without it being ethically justified.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Humans develop moral agency through particular relationships; special obligations to family/community are foundational to ethical identity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Impartial morality alone cannot account for why we have stronger duties to our children than strangers' children.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Communities function through reciprocal commitment; partiality sustains the trust networks that enable cooperation and justice.
?
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.