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 Feinberg's account of harm as wrongful setback to interests is independent of consent, since consent to competition does not entail consent to every method employed within it.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Distinguishing 'legitimate' from 'illegitimate' competition methods requires independent moral criteria beyond Feinberg's harm principle.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If consent truly doesn't limit harm assessment, it becomes unclear why consensual risk-taking in extreme sports isn't classified as harmful.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Feinberg's framework may conflate harm (objective setback) with wrongfulness, which arguably depends partly on whether participants consented.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Consenting to participate in boxing does not entail consenting to being struck with a lead pipe, showing consent has scope limits.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Harm is fundamentally about setbacks to interests (health, autonomy, property), not merely about what parties explicitly agreed to allow.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If consent could override any harm assessment, then consensual slavery or organ harvesting would be harmless, which is counterintuitive.
      ?

      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.