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 Domination does not require the active exercise of power against the dominated individual, though it may require the active exercise of power against someone relevantly similar to that individual.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Domination, as Pettit defines it, requires the *capacity* to interfere arbitrarily, which is a structural relation between agents, not a psychological effect on the dominated.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Conditioning behavior through fear of witnessed punishment is an empirical causal mechanism, not the normative structural condition that constitutes domination as unfreedom.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Conflating the psychological effects of domination with its constitutive conditions collapses the republican distinction between domination and mere subjugation by natural forces.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Robert Nozick's historical entitlement theory holds that a power relation only generates moral concern when it involves actual coercive interference with an agent's rightful holdings or choices.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If no direct act of interference has occurred against individual A, the moral wrong—if any—belongs exclusively to those actually interfered with, not to relevantly similar bystanders.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Extending domination claims to those never directly targeted risks dissolving the agent-specific harm condition that makes rights violations action-guiding rather than merely sociological.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Witnessing power exercised over others who are relevantly like oneself is sufficient to condition one's behavior through fear.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A worker who has never been fired or threatened, but has seen coworkers fired, will still comply with the boss's wishes out of fear.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The conditioning effect of past power exercises extends across members of a subordinated social group, not only to those directly targeted.
      ?

      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.