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
    If offense-based justifications are sufficient for all ca... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Weak moralism must be endorsed if there are cases of harmless wrongdoing where legal regulation is on-balance justified

    If offense-based justifications are sufficient for all candidate cases, the claim that moralism must be endorsed rests on a false dilemma.

    ?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.Offense-based justifications adequately explain prohibitions on hate speech, obscenity, and indecent exposure without invoking moralism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a non-moralist framework covers all relevant cases, appealing to moralism introduces unnecessary theoretical commitments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The burden of proof lies with moralists to show cases offense-based justifications cannot address, not with critics to prove their sufficiency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Some harms (cruelty to animals, private immoral conduct) seem wrongful independent of offense caused, suggesting moralism is independently necessary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Offense-based justifications depend on contestable empirical claims about who is actually offended, making them an unstable foundation alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Even if offense accounts for some cases, completeness requires showing they handle *all* candidate cases—a burden the claim's conditional form evades.
      ?

      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

    Rights & Liberty1 linkedJustice & Punishment1 linked

    Related

    Even if offense accounts for some cases, completeness requires showing they hand...If a non-moralist framework covers all relevant cases, appealing to moralism int...Offense-based justifications adequately explain prohibitions on hate speech, obs...Offense-based justifications depend on contestable empirical claims about who is...
    +3 moreShow less
    Some harms (cruelty to animals, private immoral conduct) seem wrongful independe...The burden of proof lies with moralists to show cases offense-based justificatio...Weak moralism must be endorsed if there are cases of harmless wrongdoing where l...

    Details

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