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 Hart and Honoré's 'Causation in the Law' (1959) distinguishes coincidences from interventions only when the coincidence is genuinely unforeseeable.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Foreseeability is subjective and varies by person; using it as causation's criterion conflates epistemic limits with metaphysical causal relations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Many legally relevant coincidences (sudden illness, natural disasters) remain causally connected to defendant's acts even if unforeseeable at the time.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Hart and Honoré's standard may excuse liability for negligently creating dangerous conditions when subsequent unpredictable events cause harm.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Legal causation requires distinguishing defendant's action from subsequent events; foreseeability marks the boundary between responsibility and mere coincidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Unforeseeable interventions break causal chains because reasonable actors cannot plan for or guard against genuinely unpredictable events.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This framework protects defendants from liability for truly random occurrences while holding them accountable for normal risks their actions create.
      ?

      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.