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 rightmaking properties track positive ontological content while wrongmaking properties track privation or absence (as Augustinian privatio boni holds), the two classes are asymmetric in kind.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Privation theory cannot account for positive malevolence (actively willing harm); malice isn't mere absence but intentional content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If wrongmaking properties are pure absences, they cannot causally explain moral wrongs—yet absences don't cause events.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The asymmetry claim presupposes what it proves: that positive properties are 'real' while privations are 'not,' begging the question.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Privation requires a substrate (e.g., blindness requires eyes); positive properties need no such dependence, establishing fundamental asymmetry.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Wrongmaking properties causally depend on prior rightmaking properties existing; the reverse dependency doesn't hold universally.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Evil acts require capacity for good (moral agents); good acts don't require prior evil capacity, confirming ontological asymmetry.
      ?

      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.