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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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