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 Joel Feinberg's harm principle permits liberty restrictions when cumulative harms to identifiable third parties (donors' offspring) reach a threshold of serious preventable injury.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Feinberg's principle targets direct harms from present conduct; genetic risk creates conditional, probabilistic harms to non-existent future persons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Identifying 'offspring' as threshold-holders requires pre-conception persons to count morally, which Feinberg's harm principle does not clearly establish.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Screening, counseling, and informed consent by recipients may adequately prevent serious harm without restricting donors' reproductive liberty.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Feinberg's harm principle explicitly permits liberty restrictions when serious preventable harms to identifiable others reach actionable thresholds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Genetic disease transmission from sperm donation creates cumulative, serious, preventable harms to identifiable future persons (offspring).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Restricting donors with heritable serious conditions is less intrusive than permitting harm to multiple identifiable future persons.
      ?

      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.