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 duty to respect mentally incapacitated humans or nonhuman animals is only an indirect duty

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kantian dignity admits of degrees grounded in rational nature, but Christine Korsgaard argues that subjective valuation of one's own life suffices for direct moral standing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the capacity to have a welfare that can go better or worse grounds moral considerability, then severely cognitively impaired humans and sentient animals qualify directly.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Reducing their moral status to indirect duties generates the 'argument from marginal cases,' which symmetrically threatens the direct status of humans with comparable capacities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Sentient beings capable of suffering possess morally relevant interests that generate direct claims on moral agents, independent of third-party valuations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A duty grounded solely in effects on persons fails to explain why cruelty to isolated animals with no human observers remains genuinely wrong, not merely imprudent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Treating such beings decently is a way of respecting persons who value such beings
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Our duty to respect ourselves requires that we not engage in activities that would dull our ability to treat persons decently
      ?

      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.