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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that HP1 (harm causation principle) is narrower than HP2 (harm prevention principle) because HP1 is a proper part of HP2.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.HP1 and HP2 are not species of a common genus but distinct normative principles with different justificatory structures.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A proper subset relation requires shared criteria of application, but HP1 invokes agency and causation while HP2 invokes outcomes alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Because HP1's justificatory basis includes agentive responsibility absent from HP2, HP1 cannot be a proper part of HP2 without equivocation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Joel Feinberg's taxonomy in 'Harm to Others' treats harm-doing and harm-allowing as generating categorically different liberty-limiting principles, not nested ones.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If HP1 were a proper part of HP2, Mill's distinction between active interference and failure to rescue would collapse into a single justificatory standard.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Mill's own asymmetric treatment of positive and negative duties in Utilitarianism and On Liberty resists the subsumption of HP1 under HP2 as a subset relation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Every case of preventing one person from harming another is a case of harm prevention.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Not every case of harm prevention is a case of preventing one person from harming another.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.HP1 justifies intervention only when the target herself would be the cause of harm to others.
      ?

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42