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
    The supporting argument's charge of question-begging appl... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Deontological constraints cannot be rejected simply because complying with them produces worse aggregate states of affairs.

    The supporting argument's charge of question-begging applies equally to deontologists who simply assert constraint-inviolability without independent justification for why agent-relative restrictions trump aggregate welfare.

    ?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.Deontologists often lack independent arguments for why agent-relative constraints matter beyond asserting their intuitive force.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Consequentialists can ground aggregate welfare in a unified theory of value, while deontologists struggle with comparable systematic foundations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Both positions risk circularity: deontologists assert constraints; consequentialists assert welfare. The charge applies symmetrically to each.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Deontological constraints can be grounded in respect for persons, autonomy, and rights—foundational concepts independent of the constraint assertion itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The charge assumes equal burden-sharing, but foundational moral disagreements (agent-centered vs. outcome-centered) legitimately permit different justificatory starting points.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Consequentialists face their own circularity: why should aggregate welfare be the fundamental value rather than individual rights or agent-relative permissions?
      ?

      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.

    Key Terms

    Agent-relative restrictions(a type of moral constraint that prioritizes individual agents' concerns)
    Rules or limits on what an individual person should do, based on their own values and commitments, rather than universal rules that apply equally to everyone.
    Aggregate welfare(what consequentialist ethics prioritizes (competing with agent-relative restrictions))
    The total well-being or happiness of everyone combined, added up together as one sum.
    Constraint-inviolability(the core principle that deontologists assert without justification)
    The idea that certain rules or moral boundaries should never be broken, no matter what the consequences might be.
    Deontologists(identifies the group of ethicists being criticized)
    Philosophers who believe that the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on the action itself and its rules, not on its consequences or outcomes.
    question-begging(Epistemology, anti-skeptical argumentation)
    A charge leveled against anti-skeptical arguments that assume what they set out to prove, particularly in Putnamian externalist arguments

    Connections

    1 topic

    Consequentialism1 linked

    Related

    Both positions risk circularity: deontologists assert constraints; consequential...Consequentialists can ground aggregate welfare in a unified theory of value, whi...Consequentialists face their own circularity: why should aggregate welfare be th...Deontological constraints can be grounded in respect for persons, autonomy, and ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Deontological constraints cannot be rejected simply because complying with them ...Deontologists often lack independent arguments for why agent-relative constraint...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit
    The charge assumes equal burden-sharing, but foundational moral disagreements (a...