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 Omissions can constitute harm when a person's pre-existing vulnerability is causally deepened by another's inaction.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Omissions lack the causal directness of actions; vulnerability deepening requires identifying what would have occurred absent inaction.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
A doctor who withholds known life-saving treatment from a vulnerable patient deepens their mortality risk through deliberate inaction.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
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.