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 The argument conflates harm with the subjective experience of harm, but harm can be understood relationally and counterfactually.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Subjective experience is constitutive of harm for moral patients: a being experiencing no negative sensation cannot be said to be harmed in morally relevant ways.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Counterfactual harm requires problematic metaphysics: comparing actual to unrealized possible worlds introduces indeterminacy about which counterfactuals matter.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Relational harm risks overextension: deeming someone harmed by structural inequality they don't perceive may paternalistically deny their own assessment of wellbeing.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Harm can occur without awareness: a person harmed by disease while unconscious still suffers objective damage regardless of subjective experience.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Counterfactual analysis reveals harm by comparing actual outcomes to what would have occurred absent the harmful act or condition.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Relational harm accounts for structural disadvantage: someone harmed by discrimination experiences real setback even without psychological distress.
?
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.