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
    The doctrine of novus actus interveniens, as critically e... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The proximate cause of the husband's death was the wife's voluntary act, not the act of giving her the knives.

    The doctrine of novus actus interveniens, as critically examined by Michael Moore in 'Causation and Responsibility,' applies only when the intervening act is wholly abnormal, not merely unexpected in its precise form.

    ?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.Causal responsibility requires a meaningful connection between defendant's act and harm; mere unexpectedness doesn't sever causal chains.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Legal systems distinguish between foreseeable consequences (imputable) and abnormal interventions (exculpatory) to maintain proportional liability.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An act can be surprising in details yet remain within normal human behavioral ranges; abnormality is the proper threshold for breaking causation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The abnormality/unexpectedness distinction is vague; courts struggle to apply it consistently across contexts and fact-patterns.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Intervening acts often contain both expected elements and unexpected particulars; the distinction doesn't cleanly separate causal responsibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Focusing on abnormality risks holding defendants liable for highly improbable harms, contradicting fundamental principles of proximate cause.
      ?

      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.

    Key Terms

    Abnormal(as contrasted with merely unexpected)
    In this context, something that goes wildly against what any reasonable person would expect—not just unusual, but genuinely extraordinary or bizarre.
    Causation and Responsibility(as the title of Moore's work and the central topic)
    A philosophical inquiry into how we determine what causes something to happen and who should be held accountable when bad things occur—essentially asking 'who or what is really to blame?'
    Intervening act(as used in causation analysis)
    An action by someone or something that happens in the chain between your original action and a final result, potentially breaking the connection between what you did and what ultimately happened.
    Michael Moore(as the author cited)
    A contemporary American legal philosopher and scholar who specializes in criminal law, causation, and moral responsibility; he's known for rigorously analyzing when we should hold people legally and morally accountable.
    Novus actus interveniens(as used in causation and responsibility)
    A Latin legal and philosophical concept meaning 'new intervening act'—the idea that if someone else does something unexpected in between your action and a harmful result, you might not be responsible for that result anymore.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Consequentialism1 linked

    Related

    An act can be surprising in details yet remain within normal human behavioral ra...Causal responsibility requires a meaningful connection between defendant's act a...Focusing on abnormality risks holding defendants liable for highly improbable ha...Intervening acts often contain both expected elements and unexpected particulars...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit
    +3 moreShow less
    Legal systems distinguish between foreseeable consequences (imputable) and abnor...The abnormality/unexpectedness distinction is vague; courts struggle to apply it...The proximate cause of the husband's death was the wife's voluntary act, not the...