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
    Joel Feinberg's setback-to-interests account entails that... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→It is not clear that failing to rescue a drowning child harms the child.

    Joel Feinberg's setback-to-interests account entails that failing to prevent a foreseeable worsening of another's condition constitutes harm when prevention was readily available.

    ?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.Interests include not just positive gains but protection from deterioration of one's current condition or wellbeing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When prevention is readily available, the omitter controls whether the worsening occurs, making them causally responsible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Distinguishing harm by act vs. omission is morally arbitrary if consequences to interests are identical.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Feinberg's account traditionally requires a threshold of special duty or relationship; mere foreseeability doesn't establish one.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Treating all foreseeable, preventable worsenings as harms conflates harms with mere failures to benefit, overextending the concept.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Omissions lack the active causal contribution that paradigmatic harms possess, even if consequences are foreseeable.
      ?

      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

    Distinguishing harm by act vs. omission is morally arbitrary if consequences to ...Feinberg's account traditionally requires a threshold of special duty or relatio...Interests include not just positive gains but protection from deterioration of o...It is not clear that failing to rescue a drowning child harms the child.
    +3 moreShow less
    Omissions lack the active causal contribution that paradigmatic harms possess, e...Treating all foreseeable, preventable worsenings as harms conflates harms with m...When prevention is readily available, the omitter controls whether the worsening...

    Details

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