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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Ross's prima facie duties (fidelity, non-maleficence) carry intrinsic moral weight not reducible to their causal consequences.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Prima facie duties appear to have moral force precisely because historically following them produces good outcomes—their weight derives from this causal pattern.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Claiming intrinsic moral weight independent of consequences risks making duties arbitrary: why should *these* duties matter morally without consequentialist grounding?
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.When prima facie duties genuinely conflict (fidelity vs. non-maleficence), we resolve them by weighing consequences, suggesting consequences are foundational after all.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Keeping promises matters morally even when breaking them produces better outcomes, suggesting duty-based rather than consequence-based foundations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Our moral intuitions distinguish between accidentally harming someone and intentionally doing so with identical consequences, indicating non-consequentialist structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If duties reduced to consequences, we couldn't explain why we owe special obligations to specific people (children, creditors) based on particular relationships.
      ?

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42