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 A contractarian cannot easily justify equal insurance premiums for disabled and non-disabled persons.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Currently healthy contractors have a lower probability of needing disability care than already-disabled persons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rational contractors bargain based on their own expected costs and benefits.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Equal premiums without prior knowledge of one's condition require justification that pure contractarianism struggles to supply.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Gauthier's 'Morals by Agreement' grounds rational bargaining in maximizing relative advantage, giving healthy contractors leverage to reject cost-pooling.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bargainers behind no veil of ignorance—knowing their health status—will defect from equal-premium schemes, as Hobbesian rational egoism predicts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without Rawlsian epistemic constraints, contractarianism lacks the structural mechanism to override actuarially rational discrimination.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Buchanan and Tullock's 'Calculus of Consent' shows unanimous agreement requires each party to perceive net benefit, which healthy majorities won't in equal disability pooling.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Disabled persons constitute a minority whose inclusion in equal-premium contracts imposes net costs on the non-disabled majority, violating the unanimity criterion for legitimate agreement.
      ?

      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.