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 Where no determinate counterfactual baseline exists, no coherent comparative harm attribution can be made.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Comparative harm claims succeed when the counterfactual baseline is reasonably specifiable (e.g., 'normal medical practice'), even if indeterminate at extremes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Non-comparative harms (suffering, deprivation) can be assessed intrinsically without counterfactuals, challenging the claim's universal scope.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Degrees of determinacy exist; vagueness in baselines permits probabilistic or range-based harm assessments rather than incoherence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Harm requires comparison between actual and counterfactual states; without a determinate baseline, we cannot identify what constitutes harm.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Vague counterfactuals permit arbitrary harm attribution, violating the principle that coherent claims require determinate truth conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Legal and moral responsibility presuppose identifiable causation, which demands specifying what would have occurred absent the agent's action.
      ?

      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.