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
    Scheffler and Scanlon show that associative obligations d... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Tacit consent cannot adequately ground the full range of special obligations recognized by commonsense morality.

    Scheffler and Scanlon show that associative obligations derive from the constitutive role relationships play in practical identity, not from voluntary undertakings.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Personal identity is fundamentally constituted by relationships we inhabit, not merely voluntary contracts we sign.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Obligations grounded in identity explain why we feel duties even without explicit consent or ability to exit relationships.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Voluntary undertaking theory fails to account for obligations to family members we didn't choose but fundamentally are.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Constitutive role arguments risk circularity: defining identity partly through relationships, then deriving obligations from that identity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.People successfully revise or reject relationships core to their past identity, suggesting identity alone doesn't ground obligation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The theory underspecifies which relationships constitute identity and why, leaving obligation boundaries unclear and contestable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Social Contract1 linkedMoral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    Constitutive role arguments risk circularity: defining identity partly through r...Obligations grounded in identity explain why we feel duties even without explici...People successfully revise or reject relationships core to their past identity, ...Personal identity is fundamentally constituted by relationships we inhabit, not ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Tacit consent cannot adequately ground the full range of special obligations rec...The theory underspecifies which relationships constitute identity and why, leavi...Voluntary undertaking theory fails to account for obligations to family members ...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit