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 Judith Jarvis Thomson's counterfactual analysis holds that causal relevance is preserved whenever removing the earlier act would eliminate the harm.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Counterfactual dependence is too broad: many causal chains satisfy it despite the agent bearing no responsibility for the outcome.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Cases of causal overdetermination show harm would occur even if one act were removed, yet that act remains causally relevant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The analysis misses cases where an agent negligently enables harm through indirect means; removal eliminates harm, but doesn't capture true culpability.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Counterfactual dependence captures our intuition: an act causes harm only if that harm wouldn't occur absent the act.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This analysis avoids over-inclusion by excluding acts that merely provide background conditions for independently-caused harms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The but-for test aligns with legal and moral responsibility, where we typically hold agents liable only for actual consequences of their choices.
      ?

      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.