Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that A claim that removal is harmful does not entail that remaining is less harmful, making the comparative judgment morally decisive.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Some harms create independent moral obligations to stop them regardless of comparative alternatives.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The burden of proof should rest on those proposing active intervention, not those questioning it.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Requiring comparative judgment before action can paralyze decision-making when perfect information is unavailable.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Moral decisions require comparing all available options, not just evaluating one action in isolation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Showing action X causes harm doesn't tell us whether inaction causes more, equal, or less harm overall.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Without comparative judgment, we cannot justify choosing removal over remaining when both may be harmful.
?
How convincing is this?
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.