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 Moralistic restrictions targeting social-fabric dissolution are therefore reducible to harm prevention under a sufficiently robust conception of harm.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Defining 'social-fabric dissolution' requires prior normative commitments about which social forms are valuable—this presupposes rather than grounds moral judgment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Some moralistic restrictions (sexual propriety norms, purity codes) persist independently of measurable social harm, suggesting irreducibility to harm prevention.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Even if social stability matters, restrictions on individual liberty may cause foreseeable harms exceeding social benefits, making the reduction empirically contestable rather than conceptually sound.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Social cohesion is instrumentally necessary for individual welfare; its dissolution causes measurable harms like violence, poverty, and psychological distress.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A harm conception including relational goods (trust, cooperation, shared meaning) captures what moralists intuitively protect without requiring non-naturalistic values.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Many moral prohibitions (against betrayal, deception, covenant-breaking) track predictable social-structural damages, making reducibility explanatorily superior to positing independent moral facts.
      ?

      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.