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
    To identify malfunction one must first identify what the ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Bioethics
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Any account of biological malfunction must be grounded in a prior theory of biological function

    To identify malfunction one must first identify what the function is

    BioethicsTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    BioethicsTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Causation1 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Bioethics
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Any account of biological malfunction must be grounded in a prior theory of biol...Malfunction is the failure to perform a function

    Similar

    Systemic concepts of function do permit attributions of malfunction.79%Malfunction is the failure to perform a function76%Therefore, a component can malfunction without ceasing to be a member ...76%Any account of biological malfunction must be grounded in a prior theo...70%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: health-disease
    View source passageHide passage
    This counterexample is instructive, however, since there are two ways of amending the proposal in the light of it. First, perhaps the principle of nondistinct sustaining causes fails to capture our intuitions about causes of disease. A second possibility is that the principle is a good causal condition, but that the account of evils is too broad, and needs to be restricted to a more intuitively medical set of evils, rather than the broader class of impediments to well-being. The section on healt

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective