Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that If the knives had not been gifted, the coincidental fall would have produced no knife-related death, making the gift a necessary condition for the harm.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
The fall itself, not the knives, is the triggering cause; knives are merely one of infinite potential harm-enabling conditions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Necessary condition ≠ culpable cause; oxygen is necessary for harm but givers of knives aren't responsible for oxygen.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Intervening human choices (how/whether to position knives) break causal chains; giver's necessity doesn't entail their liability.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Necessary conditions are those without which an outcome cannot occur; no knives present means no knife-related death possible.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The gift created the causal pathway enabling harm; absent the gift, the fall's outcome differs fundamentally in kind.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Moral responsibility tracks necessary conditions; givers bear responsibility when their act makes harm possible.
?
How convincing is this?
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.