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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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