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
    Judgments of illness require both the right causal antece... — Carmelics
    Home/Bioethics
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Judgments of illness require both the right causal antecedents and value judgments about the effects of those causes

    Bioethics
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Generic naturalism about illness holds that illness judgments are sensitive to causal antecedents of the right sort
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Generic naturalism also holds that illness judgments are sensitive to value judgments about the effects of those causes
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Christopher Boorse's biostatistical theory holds that illness is fully definable by species-typical functional impairment without any value judgments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If illness can be rigorously characterized through deviation from statistically normal biological functioning, value judgments are explanatorily redundant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A purely descriptive causal-functional account preserves scientific objectivity that hybrid causal-evaluative accounts systematically undermine.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Peter Sedgwick's constructivist critique argues illness judgments are entirely value-laden, making appeal to causal antecedents philosophically secondary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If values fully constitute what counts as illness, causal antecedents merely describe how a disvalued state was produced, not why it is an illness.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    BioethicsCausation

    Related

    A purely descriptive causal-functional account preserves scientific objectivity ...Christopher Boorse's biostatistical theory holds that illness is fully definable...Generic naturalism about illness holds that illness judgments are sensitive to c...Generic naturalism also holds that illness judgments are sensitive to value judg...
    +3 moreShow less
    If illness can be rigorously characterized through deviation from statistically ...If values fully constitute what counts as illness, causal antecedents merely des...Peter Sedgwick's constructivist critique argues illness judgments are entirely v...

    Similar

    Generic naturalism about illness holds that illness judgments are sens...84%A good causal condition must align with intuitions about what causes d...83%Generic naturalism also holds that illness judgments are sensitive to ...79%Preceding and antecedent causes, understood in sufficient detail, dete...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: health-disease
    View source passageHide passage
    We have arrived at a generic naturalism that says judgments of illness are sensitive to causal antecedents of the right sort, as well as to value judgments about the effects of those causes. What are the right causal antecedents? Culver and Gert’s (1982) requirement that the antecedents be a “nondistinct sustaining cause” is a biologically noncommittal criterion. Culver and Gert analyze the concept of a malady, which involves suffering evils, or increased risk of evil, due to “a condition not su
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit