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
    Omissions can constitute harm when a person's pre-existin... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Good Samaritan laws cannot straightforwardly be justified by appeal to the harm principle.

    Omissions can constitute harm when a person's pre-existing vulnerability is causally deepened by another's inaction.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.A doctor who withholds known life-saving treatment from a vulnerable patient deepens their mortality risk through deliberate inaction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Moral responsibility extends to foreseeable consequences of inaction when one has special duty and knowledge of vulnerability.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The distinction between action and omission collapses when someone occupies a causal role others depend upon for protection.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Omissions lack the causal directness of actions; vulnerability deepening requires identifying what would have occurred absent inaction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Requiring rescue via inaction imposes unlimited positive duties, forcing people to solve others' problems without choosing that role.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Pre-existing vulnerability itself, not another's inaction, is the primary cause of deepened harm; omission is merely absence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Rights & Liberty1 linkedJustice & Punishment1 linked

    Related

    A doctor who withholds known life-saving treatment from a vulnerable patient dee...Good Samaritan laws cannot straightforwardly be justified by appeal to the harm ...Moral responsibility extends to foreseeable consequences of inaction when one ha...Omissions lack the causal directness of actions; vulnerability deepening require...
    +3 moreShow less
    Pre-existing vulnerability itself, not another's inaction, is the primary cause ...Requiring rescue via inaction imposes unlimited positive duties, forcing people ...The distinction between action and omission collapses when someone occupies a ca...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit