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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that A complete ethics of risk must distinguish between intentional and unintentional risk exposure, and between voluntary risk-taking, accepted imposed risks, and non-accepted imposed risks.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Consequentialist frameworks (Bentham, Singer) hold that moral weight derives from outcomes and their probabilities, not the mental states accompanying them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The distinction between intentional and unintentional risk imposition tracks causal history rather than the harm's magnitude, making it morally epiphenomenal.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A complete ethics of risk should maximize expected welfare across all affected parties, rendering intent-based distinctions redundant to that calculus.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Structural injustice theorists (Young, Anderson) argue that focusing on individual intent obscures systemic risk distributions imposed on marginalized groups without meaningful consent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The voluntary/non-voluntary distinction presupposes genuine background conditions of fairness that rarely obtain, making consent-based frameworks systematically misleading.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A complete ethics of risk must therefore prioritize structural analysis of who bears risk over the mental states of individual risk-imposers.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Moral analysis of risk requires attending to the mental states of the risk-imposer, including whether harm is intended.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Moral analysis of risk requires attending to whether the person exposed to risk has consented to that exposure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.These distinctions cannot be captured by a framework that treats risks solely as probabilistic mixtures of outcomes.
      ?

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42