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 Current generations do have duties of climate justice to future people, even given the Non-Identity Problem

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Many theories of justice are not committed to a narrow person-affecting point of view
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Non-Identity Problem only undermines duties to future people if justice requires a narrow person-affecting framework
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Sufficientarian, egalitarian, prioritarian, and other accounts of justice do not require that an act is unjust only if it makes someone worse off than they would otherwise have been
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rawlsian just savings principles require each generation to preserve gains of culture and maintain just institutions for successors.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Future people, as members of the cooperative scheme of society across time, hold valid claims under the original position's veil of ignorance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Climate destabilization undermines the basic structural conditions that Rawlsian justice requires be preserved across generations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Parfit's own response to Non-Identity invokes an impersonal 'wide' consequentialist principle: outcomes are worse if they contain less welfare, regardless of victim identity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rights-based accounts grounded in capabilities (Sen, Nussbaum) attach entitlements to persons qua future persons, not to counterfactual comparisons with non-existence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Deliberately imposing foreseeable severe harm on whomever will exist constitutes a wrong under virtually any non-person-affecting framework, satisfying the duty's basis independently.
      ?

      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.