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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The distinction between causes and background conditions tracks the distinction between abnormal and normal conditions, not merely counterfactual dependence.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Counterfactual theories can accommodate normative asymmetries by restricting the relevant antecedent to the actual causal history, as Lewis's 'influence' account does.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Byron/Chris asymmetry reflects differences in the causal structure of obligations—Byron's promise creates a causal power Chris lacks—not a separate normative filter on causation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, normality-based accounts conflate the metaphysics of causation with pragmatics of causal explanation, a distinction Hitchcock himself defends in separating causation from causal relevance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hart and Honoré's original abnormality criterion was explicitly tied to human agency and voluntary intervention, not to statistical or normative deviance in general.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hitchcock and Knobe's pen-shortage case involves a normative violation by Piper, but conflating legal permission with causal abnormality smuggles deontic facts into ontological causal structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If normative status were constitutive of causation rather than explanatory salience, causal facts would vary across legal jurisdictions—a result that reductionist metaphysicians like Menzies and Price reject.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.In McGrath's case, both Byron's and Chris's failures are equally counterfactually relevant to the plant's death, yet only Byron's failure is judged a cause.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The only relevant difference between Byron and Chris is that Byron had a promise-based obligation, making his failure abnormal.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.In Hitchcock and Knobe's case, both Adriel and Piper equally contributed to the shortage, yet only Piper's action is judged a cause.
      ?

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42