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
    You should save the five people instead of the one person — Carmelics
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    You should save the five people instead of the one person

    ConsequentialismJustice & Punishment
    ?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.Five deaths is a worse outcome than one death
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The right action is the one that produces the best outcome
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Each person has an inviolable right not to be sacrificed merely as a means to aggregate benefit for others.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Scanlon's contractualism holds that principles permitting such sacrifice could be reasonably rejected by the one person.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An action violating a principle no individual could reasonably reject is impermissible regardless of aggregate outcomes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Numbers of victims cannot be aggregated across separate individuals as if they were a single bearer of cumulative harm.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Taurek's 1977 argument establishes that the separateness of persons makes '5 deaths worse than 1 death' a category error.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If outcomes cannot be cardinally compared across distinct persons, the consequentialist premise P1 loses its justificatory force.
      ?

      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

    Justice & PunishmentConsequentialism

    Related

    An action violating a principle no individual could reasonably reject is impermi...Each person has an inviolable right not to be sacrificed merely as a means to ag...Five deaths is a worse outcome than one deathIf outcomes cannot be cardinally compared across distinct persons, the consequen...
    +4 moreShow less
    Numbers of victims cannot be aggregated across separate individuals as if they w...Scanlon's contractualism holds that principles permitting such sacrifice could b...Taurek's 1977 argument establishes that the separateness of persons makes '5 dea...The right action is the one that produces the best outcome

    Similar

    Each of the five people can object to a principle permitting you to sa...84%Contractualism cannot straightforwardly justify saving the five over t...83%The lifeguard ought to save the five swimmers rather than the one, bec...82%The lone person can object to a principle permitting you to save the f...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: contractualism
    View source passageHide passage
    Suppose you decide to save the lone swimmer on the second rock. Intuitively, this seems wrong. Surely you should have saved five people instead of one. The challenge for contractualism is to explain why what you did is wrong. Utilitarians have a straightforward answer, based on aggregation. You should save the five people instead of the one simply because five deaths is a worse result than one death. This case is tricky for contractualism because it rejects aggregation. The five people will each
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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