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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that A limit must be drawn between reasonable and unreasonable impositions of risk.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.