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
    To determine whether an action is wrong, one must compare... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    To determine whether an action is wrong, one must compare different individuals' complaints by comparing how competing principles treat each person.

    Justice & PunishmentMoral Responsibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Wrongness is determined by whether a principle permitting the action can be justified to all concerned.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Justifiability to all concerned requires comparing one principle's treatment of one individual with the way alternative principles treat others.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Some moral wrongs are agent-relative: they depend on what I do, not how principles distribute burdens across persons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bernard Williams's integrity objection shows that comparing interpersonal complaints abstracts away the first-person standpoint constitutive of moral agency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A theory that reduces wrongness to comparative principle-ranking cannot account for special obligations that arise independently of any principle's general justifiability.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Frances Kamm and Judith Thomson demonstrate that deontological constraints on action are triggered by features intrinsic to acts, not by how competing principles rank complaints.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If wrongness were determined by comparing how principles treat each person, the doctrine of doing and allowing would collapse, since aggregative comparison ignores the moral significance of the act-omission distinction.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityJustice & Punishment

    Related

    A theory that reduces wrongness to comparative principle-ranking cannot account ...Bernard Williams's integrity objection shows that comparing interpersonal compla...Frances Kamm and Judith Thomson demonstrate that deontological constraints on ac...If wrongness were determined by comparing how principles treat each person, the ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Justifiability to all concerned requires comparing one principle's treatment of ...Some moral wrongs are agent-relative: they depend on what I do, not how principl...Wrongness is determined by whether a principle permitting the action can be just...

    Similar

    If there is a distinction between right and wrong actions, there must ...82%If a principle can be rejected whenever it treats someone unfairly, th...80%Whether an act is wrong depends not only on its direct impact on indiv...79%Wrongness is determined by whether a principle permitting the action c...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: contractualism
    View source passageHide passage
    The Contractualist answer appeals to the conceptual link between wrongness and justification. Whether an act is wrong depends, not only on its direct impact on individuals, but also on whether a principle permitting it can be justified to all concerned. ‘Because it is wrong’ is not the kind of reason that can be fed into the contractualist apparatus, since it is not something that happens to individuals. Instead, wrongness is something that is constructed out of individuals’ reasons using that v
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit