Criticisms
These critiques are taken seriously. The framework is still developing and needs real feedback.
"Undermines responsibility/agency"
Response: Responsibility stays, but it's grounded in causal role and future influence. The aim is to increase agency by increasing tools and clarity, not deny it.
"Too outcome-driven"
Response: Outcomes matter because they shape lives, but the framework values dignity and repair as causal supports. It does not reduce ethics to metrics alone.
"Neglects the social role of moral language"
Response: Moral language can signal norms, but the framework asks whether that signal changes behavior. It keeps norm-setting while avoiding counterproductive blame.
"Risks top-down control"
Response: Any causal approach can be misused. Causal Humanism emphasizes transparency, humility, and letting the people affected help shape the response.
Additional questions, clarified
- Is determinism assumed? The framework sets metaphysics aside and asks: if we operate as though causes are decisive, what practical conclusions follow?
- Is this moral permissiveness? No. It distinguishes cases by causal inputs and risk, and it requires repair and skill-building.
- What about dangerous patterns? Containment can be necessary for safety and should be proportional to risk, but it must be paired with rehabilitation and ongoing cause-finding.
- What if rehab keeps failing? Treatment-resistant cases are findings. They require deeper investigation into the conditions that produced the pattern, while protection continues.
- How do we resist harmful systems? Causal analysis still allows moral opposition to suffering systems by changing incentives, structures, and feedback that produce harm.
- No suffering without causal purpose. Restrictions must be transparent, minimized, and continuously reassessed so they do not drift into disguised punishment.