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
    There is no reason why a benefit should go to a particula... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→One has no less a reason to act for the good of anyone and everyone else as one has to act for one's own good.

    There is no reason why a benefit should go to a particular person rather than someone else merely because that person is the one who would be receiving it.

    ConsequentialismMoral Responsibility
    ?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

    Moral ResponsibilityConsequentialism

    Connections

    1 topic

    Virtue Ethics1 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Moral Responsibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    One has no less a reason to act for the good of anyone and everyone else as one ...One should act for one's own sake.One's own well-being ought to be of concern to oneself because it is someone's w...

    Similar

    If one is not responsible for certain advantages and disadvantages, th...76%There is no clear reason why one is obliged to sacrifice more for anot...75%One is never justified in harming someone without their consent to imp...75%One is not responsible for, and therefore not deserving of, advantages...74%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: altruism
    View source passageHide passage
    The consequentialist’s answer begins with the claim that one’s own well-being ought to be of concern to oneself simply because it is someone’s well-being; it should not be of importance to oneself simply because it is one’s own well-being. There is, in other words, no reason why a benefit should go to you rather than someone else just because you are the one who would be receiving it. Accordingly, if one assumes, as one should, that one should act for one’s own sake, then one has no less a reaso

    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