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 If anti-harming restrictions prevent harm by targeting the causal source, the two rationales are extensionally equivalent in scope, not hierarchically ordered.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Causal-source restrictions may prevent harms indirectly or probabilistically, while direct restrictions prevent harms categorically.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Two rationales can have identical scope but different normative force—hierarchy concerns justification strength, not merely coverage.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Extensional equivalence requires proving both restrict identical conduct in all contexts, which causal targeting may not satisfy universally.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Harm prevention via causal sources achieves identical practical outcomes as direct harm-targeting restrictions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When two interventions prevent the same harms in the same cases, claiming hierarchy between them lacks empirical grounding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Extensional equivalence in scope means both rationales capture identical prohibited conduct, making priority claims conceptually empty.
      ?

      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.