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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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