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 Genetic vaccines that provide better-than-normal damage resistance are permissible as treatments, not enhancements, if they target predictable muscle damage

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The treatment/enhancement distinction requires a baseline of species-typical functioning, not merely the absence of a diagnosable malady (Boorse, Daniels).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Interventions producing above-normal capability exceed species-typical functioning by definition, regardless of whether a risk condition was identified prior to intervention.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, producing better-than-normal damage resistance cannot be classified as treatment even when targeting a predictable pathological risk.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Classifying an intervention by its target rather than its outcome allows any enhancement to be reframed as treatment by identifying a pre-existing vulnerability it addresses (the 'bootstrapping' objection, Juengst 1997).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A principled treatment/enhancement boundary must be outcome-sensitive, not merely intention- or target-sensitive, to avoid collapsing the distinction entirely.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.An intervention is legitimate treatment if it addresses a diagnosable malady
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Predictable muscle damage constitutes a diagnosable risk
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Intervening against a diagnosable risk qualifies as treatment even if the intervention incidentally produces above-normal capability
      ?

      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.