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 The consequentialist argument for shareholder primacy is flawed because it does not allow sufficient scope for personal choice.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The consequentialist argument requires all firms to aim at maximizing shareholder value.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Most people should be able to pursue economic projects that matter to them, even if those projects do not maximize shareholder value.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A theory that mandates a single objective for all firms fails to respect this personal latitude.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Rights & Liberty
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.