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
    Capacity for choice-interference or social relatedness is... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Capacity for choice-interference or social relatedness is not sufficient for domination on a non-moralized, norm-independent theory of domination.

    Moral ResponsibilityRights & Liberty
    ?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.A capacity for choice-interference, or social relatedness however rendered, is necessary but not sufficient for domination on a non-moralized/norm-independent theory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.To get domination, something more is required than mere choice-interference or power within a social relationship.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.On Pettit's republican account, domination just is the capacity for arbitrary interference, making capacity itself constitutive rather than merely necessary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If domination is defined structurally by the standing to interfere arbitrarily, adding further conditions smuggles in moralized norms under the guise of descriptive neutrality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Lovett's formalization of domination as comprehensive social power entails that robust asymmetric power within a relationship is sufficient to constitute domination without additional criteria.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Requiring 'something more' than relational power reintroduces subjective or normative thresholds that undermine the non-moralized objectivity the theory claims to provide.
      ?

      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 ResponsibilityRights & Liberty

    Connections

    1 topic

    Social Contract2 linked

    Related

    A capacity for choice-interference, or social relatedness however rendered, is n...If domination is defined structurally by the standing to interfere arbitrarily, ...Lovett's formalization of domination as comprehensive social power entails that ...On Pettit's republican account, domination just is the capacity for arbitrary in...
    +2 moreShow less
    Requiring 'something more' than relational power reintroduces subjective or norm...To get domination, something more is required than mere choice-interference or p...

    Similar

    A capacity for choice-interference, or social relatedness however rend...97%To get domination, something more is required than mere choice-interfe...84%Freedom as non-domination depends on the capacity of another to interf...83%Any adequate conception of freedom must account for cases where domina...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: domination
    View source passageHide passage
    A capacity for choice-interference, or social relatedness however rendered, is necessary but not sufficient for domination on a non-moralized/norm-independent theory. To get domination, something more is required than mere choice-interference or power within a social relationship.
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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