Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Members who voluntarily participate in institutions with known capacities for harm bear responsibility through that participatory stance alone.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Responsibility requires causal contribution to harm, not mere participation in institutions with harmful capacities.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Many institutions with known harms lack viable alternatives, making 'voluntary' participation practically coercive.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Stance-based responsibility conflates complicity with actual agency, obscuring degrees of moral culpability.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Voluntary participation signals consent to accept the foreseeable consequences and moral weight of membership.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Choosing to join despite known harms makes one complicit in perpetuating those institutional capacities.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Responsibility attaches to choices that sustain harmful systems, regardless of individual contribution magnitude.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42