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 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.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.