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 There are absolute constraints on the subjective ends we may set, the means we may use, and how we may treat persons.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Moral constraints derive their force from consequences for welfare, not from the intrinsic status of persons as ends.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When treating a person as a means produces outcomes that maximally respect all persons' welfare, the constraint against such treatment loses its absolute force.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Mill's harm principle and utilitarian aggregation provide a coherent framework for moral limits without invoking inviolable categorical prohibitions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's analogy between persons as ends and spatial limits commits a category error: persons are agents with dynamic, revisable ends, not fixed termini.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bernard Williams argued that integrity-based constraints on action derive from an agent's own deep commitments, not from abstract universal limits on all agents equally.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If constraints are grounded in the particularity of individual projects and relationships, they are agent-relative and defeasible, not absolute and universal.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Persons are ends in themselves.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An end in itself functions as a limit, analogous to how the end of a road limits travel.
      ?

      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.