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 Utilitarianism is justified in ignoring interpersonal distributive principles grounded in the distinctness of persons.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rawls argues that the separateness of persons is a pre-theoretical moral datum that constrains acceptable theories, not merely a metaphysical thesis.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Even if reductionism about personal identity is true, it does not follow that distributive principles tracking persons' distinct experiential perspectives lose normative force.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Parfit's own reductionism led him to strengthen, not abandon, distributive concerns by extending them to person-stages, undermining the pro-utilitarian inference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.T.M. Scanlon grounds interpersonal distributive principles in the practice of justification to individuals, which is independent of deep metaphysical facts about personal identity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Even a reductionist must acknowledge functional boundaries between persons' welfare systems, and these boundaries suffice to generate irreducible distributive claims.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Reductionism about personal identity holds that the non-identity of persons is not a deep metaphysical fact.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Interpersonal distributive principles derive their force from the metaphysical distinctness of persons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the non-identity of persons is not a deep fact, then the distributive principles grounded in that non-identity lack force.
      ?

      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.