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 no direct act of interference has occurred against individual A, the moral wrong—if any—belongs exclusively to those actually interfered with, not to relevantly similar bystanders.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Systemic wrongs often harm similarly-situated people differently; those spared may still suffer injustice from unjust structures affecting their group.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Moral status depends on facts about persons, not accident of treatment; relevantly similar bystanders may share the violation even if not directly targeted.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Some wrongs (discrimination, oppression) wrong entire categories by their nature, making direct targeting irrelevant to membership in wronged group.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Moral responsibility requires causal connection: those not directly acted upon lack the requisite causal link to bear responsibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Extending moral wrong to non-interfered parties risks diluting accountability and obscuring who actually caused the harm.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Individual A's non-interference distinguishes their moral position from those directly wronged, making identical moral status implausible.
      ?

      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.