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 The argument commits a genetic fallacy: the pernicious social effects of affective blame do not refute the independent normative justification for proportionate retributive censure.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If a moral theory's real-world effects systematically undermine its stated goals, this casts doubt on whether it captures genuine moral truth.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The distinction between 'independent justification' and 'social effects' breaks down when effects are predictable and integral to the practice itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Moral principles require practical vindication; a retributive theory justified in theory but harmful in practice may be theoretically incoherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A practice's normative justification is logically independent from its contingent social consequences in any particular implementation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Proportionate retributive censure has intrinsic moral merit grounded in desert and fairness, regardless of how people affectively respond to it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Rejecting justified practices solely because they cause harm requires showing the harm outweighs the independent moral good, not just that harm exists.
      ?

      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.