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 Consequentialist justifications for terrorism presuppose a predictive certainty about political outcomes that empirical evidence on terrorism's effectiveness systematically refutes.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Some terrorist campaigns (Algerian FLN, Cuban Revolution) did achieve major political objectives, suggesting effectiveness claims aren't wholly empirically refuted.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Consequentialists need only show terrorism *might* work given actors' reasonable beliefs, not that it *will*—uncertainty doesn't eliminate justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Comparing terrorism to conventional alternatives (prolonged occupation, repression) may show it produces better outcomes despite absolute ineffectiveness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Empirical studies show terrorism rarely achieves stated political objectives and often backfires through increased security/public opposition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Consequentialists require high confidence in outcome predictions, but terrorism's complex causal chains make reliable prediction epistemically impossible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Historical cases (IRA, ETA, RAF) demonstrate terrorists systematically overestimate their strategy's effectiveness relative to actual political results.
      ?

      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.