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 Care for persons who cannot participate as rational contractors requires duties of justice grounded in dignity, not reciprocity—a foundation contractarianism cannot supply.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Contractarians can ground duties to non-rational persons via hypothetical consent: rational agents would contract to protect their vulnerable future/past selves.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Dignity-based frameworks face equal problems explaining why dignity generates specific duties to *care for* persons rather than merely respecting their autonomy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Extended contractarian theories (Rawls, Scanlon) successfully incorporate protections for dependents without abandoning reciprocity as foundational.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Infants, dementia patients, and the severely disabled cannot enter contracts, yet deserve moral protection equal to rational agents.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Dignity is an intrinsic property of persons qua human beings, not earned through rational capacity or reciprocal exchange ability.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Contractarian duties collapse when one party cannot reciprocate, leaving vulnerable dependents morally unprotected by the theory.
      ?

      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.