MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2262164029 · doi:10.14288/1.0066249

Persons and partiality: limitations on consequentialist justifications

2008· article· en· W2262164029 on OpenAlexaff
Timothy William Christie

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhilosophy and Theoretical Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsequentialismEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Should the authorities observe the rules regarding the treatment of enemy combatants, or is it morally justified for the authorities to violate some human rights in order to make everyone safer? Some moral theorists are committed to the claim that using torture for the greater good is not only permissible but also obligatory. One of the key goals of my thesis is to undermine this sort of claim. Contemporary consequentialists, such as Philip Pettit, hold that an agent is always permitted to bring about a certain state of affairs solely on the grounds that the state of affairs is the best state of affairs, impersonally judged. Derek Parfit agrees with Pettit's claim, arguing that a reductionist account of persons offers support for moral theories tha tfail to acknowledge the fact that each person is a separate unit of moral concern. I reject Parfit's assumption that the natural separateness of persons is morally insignificant: if we imagine a species of person that is not naturally separate from each other, it is reasonable to suppose that the moral norms of this different species of person would be drastically different from deeply entrenched human moral norms. I conjecture that the separateness of persons offers a rationale for restrictions against grossly assaulting and killing innocent persons. Samuel Scheffler argues that restrictions are so strong they are paradoxical. I counter this charge by arguing that restrictions need not categorically bar types of actions like killing innocent people, but rather should limit consequentialist justifications for these types of actions. Such a distinction addresses the air of paradox that surrounds restrictions because it allows for the possibility that agent-relative reasons justify why agents may assault or kill when the agent is confronted with a tragic moral dilemma. Agent-relative reasons are relevant to moral justification because human persons value the world around them from the first person point of view. In order for morality to appropriately acknowledge this feature of human persons, it must be permissible for humans to adopt a partial attitude toward their own actions, lives and loved ones.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.176 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicPhilosophy and Theoretical ScienceFrench-language works237,207