Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that A duty of right must be universalizable, but universal private property rights necessarily exclude some persons from ownership.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Universalizability requires applying a principle consistently in relevantly similar cases, not that everyone simultaneously possesses identical rights.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Property rights are universalizable because everyone could hold some property; that not all hold all property reflects scarcity, not the right's structure.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Many legitimate rights create exclusion: free speech excludes non-speakers' control of your utterances; voting excludes non-citizens.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Rights derive legitimacy from principles applicable to all rational agents without exception or arbitrary distinction.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Private property inherently creates exclusion: only owners can use/transfer property, systematically denying non-owners access.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If a right cannot be universalized to all persons, it fails the categorical requirement and becomes mere privilege or license.
?
How convincing is this?
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.