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 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.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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