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 You are morally obligated to save a drowning infant in a shallow pond when doing so requires minimal effort and inconvenience.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Moral obligations require a special relationship or prior causal role; mere proximity and capability alone do not generate duties to rescue.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Frances Kamm and Frances Mylan Scanlon's contractualist framework grounds obligations in relational duties, not universal consequentialist demands on bystanders.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If capability alone generated obligations, agents would face unlimited, demandingness-collapsing duties that undermine the moral significance of personal projects and commitments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Bernard Williams argues that utilitarianism's impartial demands alienate agents from their ground projects, which are constitutive of personal integrity and identity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An obligation derived solely from the capacity to prevent harm with minimal cost implicitly endorses the impartial aggregative reasoning Williams identifies as integrity-destroying.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A moral theory that systematically overrides agent-relative reasons in favor of impartial outcomes cannot coherently ground genuine moral obligations without undermining the motivational basis of morality itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The infant is drowning in a shallow pond.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.You have the power to save the infant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Saving the infant requires minimal effort and inconvenience on your part.
      ?

      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.