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 contractualist can justify equal insurance premiums without prior knowledge of one's condition because such an agreement could not be reasonably rejected.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Scanlon's 'reasonable rejection' test is indexed to individuals' actual standpoints, not hypothetical positions of ignorance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A person who already knows they are chronically ill has a reasonable complaint against equal premiums that subsidize their care less than actuarial pricing would.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Contractualism thus yields indeterminate or competing verdicts when contractors possess asymmetric morally relevant information.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rawls's veil of ignorance is a device of representation, not a condition Scanlonian contractualism inherits or requires.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Importing epistemic ignorance into Scanlonian contractualism conflates two distinct traditions, undermining the claim's theoretical grounding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without that importation, high-risk individuals can reasonably reject equal premiums as failing to reflect their distinctive burden-bearing position.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Contractualism evaluates agreements by whether they can be reasonably rejected, not merely by self-interested rational choice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.No one could reasonably reject an equal-premium insurance scheme given uncertainty about their own future condition.
      ?

      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.