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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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