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 Within a nonconsequentialist approach to morality, terrorism is considered wrong in itself.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Nonconsequentialist frameworks like just war theory judge acts by their specific features, yet historically permit targeting non-combatants under supreme emergency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Walzer's 'supreme emergency' doctrine shows even deontological traditions allow intentional civilian harm when civilizational stakes are sufficiently catastrophic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If established nonconsequentialist frameworks permit paradigmatic terrorist acts under extreme conditions, terrorism cannot be wrong 'in itself' within those frameworks.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The wrongness of an act 'in itself' requires a stable, non-contested description of what that act essentially is.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Philosophers including Coady and Primoratz dispute whether 'terrorism' is defined by targeting civilians, by political intent, or by terror-production, yielding no unified act-type.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without a determinate act-type, nonconsequentialism cannot issue a verdict that terrorism as such is intrinsically wrong, only that specific instantiations may be.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Nonconsequentialism judges acts by what they are rather than solely by their consequences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Terrorism, by what it is, qualifies as wrong under nonconsequentialist evaluation.
      ?

      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.