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
    Hume argued in 'Of Suicide' that redirecting rivers and a... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Suicide is morally impermissible

    Hume argued in 'Of Suicide' that redirecting rivers and altering nature are not impious, so disturbing natural causation is not inherently wrong.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Hume distinguishes between violating divine will and merely redirecting natural forces, making the latter morally neutral.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Human agency exercised through natural laws (engineering rivers) differs morally from violating natural law itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If altering nature were inherently impious, all human survival activities (farming, building) would be forbidden.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Hume's argument about rivers concerns utility and property rights, not whether disrupting causation is always permissible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Some natural disruptions (suicide, ecological collapse) may be wrong for reasons independent of whether they violate nature itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Distinguishing 'acceptable' from 'unacceptable' disruptions still requires moral criteria beyond just 'not impious.'
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Justice & Punishment1 linkedBioethics1 linked

    Related

    Distinguishing 'acceptable' from 'unacceptable' disruptions still requires moral...Human agency exercised through natural laws (engineering rivers) differs morally...Hume distinguishes between violating divine will and merely redirecting natural ...Hume's argument about rivers concerns utility and property rights, not whether d...
    +3 moreShow less
    If altering nature were inherently impious, all human survival activities (farmi...Some natural disruptions (suicide, ecological collapse) may be wrong for reasons...Suicide is morally impermissible

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit