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 If negligent killings can be graded by degree of deviation from due care, as tort law and common moral practice confirm, then action-based obligations need not be overbroad but can be indexed to culpable risk-imposition.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Tort law's negligence grades measure harm-causation and damages retrospectively; prospective moral obligations cannot rely on outcome-dependent calibrations without circularity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Culpable risk-imposition remains indeterminate without a prior account of which risks agents should accept, threatening to make obligations parasitic on unstated values.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Grading culpability by deviation from due care presupposes a fixed standard of due care, yet this standard itself requires independent normative justification the claim doesn't provide.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Tort law successfully distinguishes negligence grades (gross vs. ordinary) without treating all careless conduct identically, proving proportional culpability is workable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Moral intuitions treat a driver texting differently from one slightly exceeding speed limits, suggesting obligations naturally track degrees of risk imposition, not binary categories.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Indexing obligations to risk-deviation allows holding people responsible for genuinely controllable choices without collapsing into impossible standards.
      ?

      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