Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Moore's incapacitated rapist case stipulates away all consequences artificially, producing intuitions that may not generalize to real penal practice.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Stipulating away consequences is standard philosophical method for isolating moral principles from empirical contingencies.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If intuitions about the incapacitation case fail to generalize, that suggests the principle itself is unstable, not that the method is flawed.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Real penal practice involves many other variables; dismissing cases as artificial risks paralyzing ethics with demands for total realism.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Thought experiments isolating variables distort real-world trade-offs; incapacitation without collateral harms isn't achievable in practice.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Intuitions from artificial cases risk endorsing policies that ignore documented social costs: family separation, recidivism effects, systemic bias.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Philosophy must ground normative claims in implementable institutions, not hypothetical scenarios divorced from institutional constraints.
?
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.