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 proper subset relation requires shared criteria of application, but HP1 invokes agency and causation while HP2 invokes outcomes alone.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Agency and causation can be instrumental to outcomes; criteria need not be identical to establish subset relations, only ordered inclusion.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Many legitimate subsets mix conceptual components—e.g., 'criminal act' subsets 'intentional act' despite adding legal criteria to volitional ones.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If all HP1 cases necessarily produce the outcomes specified by HP2, the subset relation holds regardless of whether criteria are formally identical.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Subset relations in logic require identical definitional criteria; mixing agency with outcomes violates the transitivity requirement.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
HP1 (agent-focused) and HP2 (outcome-focused) pick out different essential features, making one a subset only if one criteria subsumes the other.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Without shared criteria, we cannot derive HP2 cases from HP1 cases systematically, breaking the logical structure subsets require.
?
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.