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 duty not to harm cannot be extended to all actions th... — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The duty not to harm cannot be extended to all actions that lead to a minuscule increase in the risk that a person is killed.

    Justice & PunishmentMoral Responsibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Extending the duty to all risk-increasing actions would prohibit many actions and behaviours that few people would be willing to give up.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Society as we know it is not possible without exceptions to the rule against risk-imposing actions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Moral thresholds that exempt 'minuscule' risks presuppose a principled cutoff point, which defenders of the claim have not supplied.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without a principled threshold, the claim licenses incremental risk-impositions that cumulatively constitute serious harm to identifiable persons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Joel Feinberg's aggregative harm principle holds that cumulative minor wrongs can constitute a genuine rights violation demanding redress.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Scanlon's contractualism entails that principles permitting risk-imposition must be justifiable to those who bear the risk, not merely convenient for those who impose it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The supporting argument's appeal to social utility cannot override the individual's standing to reject principles that treat their safety as negotiable for collective benefit.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityJustice & Punishment

    Connections

    2 topics

    Social Contract1 linkedRights & Liberty1 linked

    Related

    Extending the duty to all risk-increasing actions would prohibit many actions an...Joel Feinberg's aggregative harm principle holds that cumulative minor wrongs ca...Moral thresholds that exempt 'minuscule' risks presuppose a principled cutoff po...Scanlon's contractualism entails that principles permitting risk-imposition must...
    +3 moreShow less
    Society as we know it is not possible without exceptions to the rule against ris...The supporting argument's appeal to social utility cannot override the individua...Without a principled threshold, the claim licenses incremental risk-impositions ...

    Similar

    Extending the duty to all risk-increasing actions would prohibit many ...84%This prohibition cannot coherently extend to actions involving only a ...83%This prohibition should be extended to actions involving a large risk ...82%Mill requires only that an action risks harm, not that harm is certain...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: risk
    View source passageHide passage
    The problem of dealing with risks in deontological theories is similar to the corresponding problem in rights-based theories. The duty not to harm other people can be extended to a duty not to perform actions that increase their risk of being harmed. However, society as we know it is not possible without exceptions to this rule. The determination of criteria for such exceptions is problematic in the same way as for rights-based theories. All reasonable systems of moral obligations will contain a
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit