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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Samuel Scheffler argues that truly agent-relative permissions require abandoning the consequentialist structure of outcome-ranking entirely, not merely relativizing it.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Agent-relative permissions can be incorporated by ranking outcomes relative to each agent's perspective without abandoning comparative evaluation entirely.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Scheffler's position risks making agent-relative permissions unmotivated from a moral standpoint if they're wholly disconnected from evaluating states of affairs or consequences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Many deontological frameworks preserve non-consequentialist permissions without requiring the complete rejection of outcome-sensitivity that Scheffler demands.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Agent-relative permissions grant individuals legitimate priority over their own projects, which outcome-ranking structures inherently subordinate to impartial value.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Relativizing outcomes while keeping comparative ranking intact still treats agent-relative concerns as variations on a single evaluative metric, obscuring their fundamental distinctness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.True agent-relativity requires permissions to function independently of whether outcomes are better or worse, making outcome-structure itself conceptually incompatible with them.
      ?

      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.