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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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