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 Requiring an agent to perform acts that sever their deepest commitments destroys the very self that consequentialism purports to benefit.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Selves are not static essences but evolve through experience; acting against commitments may refine rather than destroy identity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The harm of severing commitments must be weighed against concrete harms prevented; consequentialists do account for such costs.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
People regularly revise deep commitments (through conversion, growth, moral education) without ceasing to exist or losing identity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Personal identity is constituted by deep commitments; severing them fundamentally alters who someone is, not just what they do.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Consequentialism's aim is to benefit agents, but benefits to a destroyed self constitute no genuine benefit to that person.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Integrity and psychological wholeness are intrinsic goods that consequentialist calculations often fail to weigh adequately.
?
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.