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
    A limit must be drawn between reasonable and unreasonable... — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A limit must be drawn between reasonable and unreasonable impositions of risk.

    Justice & 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.All reasonable systems of moral obligations prohibit actions that kill another person.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This prohibition should be extended to actions involving a large risk of killing a person.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This prohibition cannot coherently extend to actions involving only a minuscule increase in risk of killing a person.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The sorites paradox shows that any threshold between 'large' and 'minuscule' risk is arbitrary, undermining principled line-drawing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Moral obligations that depend on arbitrary thresholds lack the rational grounding required for legitimate normative authority.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Thomson and Nozick argue that risk imposition violates rights only when it crosses from statistical to identifiable harm, not by magnitude alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A magnitude-based reasonable/unreasonable distinction collapses into a consequentialist calculus that ignores the rights-based structure of harm.
      ?

      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

    Moral ResponsibilityJustice & Punishment

    Related

    A magnitude-based reasonable/unreasonable distinction collapses into a consequen...All reasonable systems of moral obligations prohibit actions that kill another p...Moral obligations that depend on arbitrary thresholds lack the rational groundin...The sorites paradox shows that any threshold between 'large' and 'minuscule' ris...
    +3 moreShow less
    This prohibition cannot coherently extend to actions involving only a minuscule ...This prohibition should be extended to actions involving a large risk of killing...Thomson and Nozick argue that risk imposition violates rights only when it cross...

    Similar

    Drawing the line between reasonable and unreasonable risk imposition r...88%The threshold of risk required to justify regulation under the harm pr...78%Deontological theories face a problem in determining criteria for perm...75%Society as we know it is not possible without exceptions to the rule a...74%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: risk
    View source passageHide passage
    The problem of dealing with risks in deontological theories is similar to the corresponding problem in rights-based theories. The duty not to harm other people can be extended to a duty not to perform actions that increase their risk of being harmed. However, society as we know it is not possible without exceptions to this rule. The determination of criteria for such exceptions is problematic in the same way as for rights-based theories. All reasonable systems of moral obligations will contain a
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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