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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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