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 Cohen's substantive equality principle fails to adequately ground the claim that race-based burdens invariably violate dignity

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Cohen's principle requires specifying a conception of dignity in which bearing unequal burdens assigned by race invariably amounts to an assault on dignity, even when those burdens serve urgent social ends
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Cohen has not provided this specification in his work
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rawls's framework distinguishes burdens that arise from fair equality of opportunity versus those imposed by morally arbitrary characteristics like race.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Race-based burdens can serve distributive justice without constituting dignity violations when they remedy prior systematic exclusions, as Rawls's difference principle permits differential treatment for the least advantaged.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Cohen's dignity principle, absent specification, cannot distinguish remedial race-conscious burdens from historically oppressive ones, undermining its claim to invariable application.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Dworkin's equality of resources framework holds that dignity requires equal concern from institutions, not identical treatment, meaning race-sensitive policies can honor rather than violate dignity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If bearing differential burdens assigned by race can express equal institutional concern for historically marginalized groups, then the invariability claim in Cohen's principle lacks grounding in a fully specified dignity concept.
      ?

      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.