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 Conflating natural and social disadvantages in institutional design collapses the distinction between what society owes persons and what nature merely imposes.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Social institutions always mediate natural conditions; there is no pre-social 'natural' baseline to reference.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Whether disadvantage stems from nature or society, its impact on opportunity is identical and equally calls for remedy.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The distinction enables institutions to evade responsibility for effects they could mitigate through design choices.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Society is responsible only for harms it creates; natural limitations exist independent of social structures.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Conflating these categories risks obligating institutions to solve all human suffering, which is practically impossible.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Distinguishing them preserves meaningful accountability: society answers for discrimination, nature does not.
?
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.