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
    The 'permitted to do' formulation avoids these counterexa... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Consequentialism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Rule consequentialists should ask 'What would happen if everybody were permitted to do that?' rather than 'What would happen if everybody did that?'

    The 'permitted to do' formulation avoids these counterexamples because enough people voluntarily choose to have children, so permitting childlessness does not threaten species survival

    Consequentialism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    Consequentialism

    Key Terms

    counterexamples(as evidence used to challenge the justified true belief analysis)
    Specific cases or scenarios that prove a general claim or definition wrong by showing an exception to the rule.
    permitting childlessness(refers to a moral or legal framework that doesn't require people to reproduce)
    Allowing people to live their lives without having children if they choose to, without legal or moral punishment.
    species survival(used in ethics discussions about obligations and reproduction)
    The continued existence of human beings as a group into the future, which requires enough people to have children.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Consequentialism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    Related

    Rule consequentialists should ask 'What would happen if everybody were permitted...The 'what would everybody do' formulation yields implausible results (e.g., cond...

    Similar

    Yet it does not seem morally wrong not to have any children72%A restriction lacking harm-prevention justification falls outside the ...71%Some restrictions cannot be justified by appeal to harm prevention, on...70%A categorical ban on paternalism would also prohibit successful patern...70%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: consequentialism
    View source passageHide passage
    The most common indirect consequentialism is rule consequentialism, which makes the moral rightness of an act depend on the consequences of a rule (Singer 1961). Since a rule is an abstract entity, a rule by itself strictly has no consequences. Still, obedience rule consequentialists can ask what would happen if everybody obeyed a rule or what would happen if everybody violated a rule. They might argue, for example, that theft is morally wrong because it would be disastrous if everybody broke a

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective