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 work on acts and their consequences holds that providing the material means for harm, when that harm is a foreseeable type even if not specific instance, implicates the provider causally.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Causal implication requires direct contribution to actual harm, not mere enablement of possibilities among many potential outcomes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Foreseeability of harm type is too broad; it conflates causal chains with moral responsibility, making ordinary providers causally implicated in rare misuses.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This view collapses the distinction between causing harm and failing to prevent it, undermining a crucial moral-legal boundary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Causal responsibility requires only foreseeability of harm type, not prediction of specific victims, matching how we hold manufacturers accountable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Providing material means creates a causal chain; withdrawing support would prevent harm, making non-withdrawal a causal contribution.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Moral intuition supports this: gun sellers bear some causal responsibility for foreseeable gun deaths even without knowing specific victims.
      ?

      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.