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 Desert claims are normatively valid only when grounded in institutions that themselves satisfy independent moral constraints (Rawls, A Theory of Justice, §48).
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Desert claims may originate pre-institutionally (natural talents, effort) and retain force independent of institutional validation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Requiring all desert to pass institutional scrutiny risks making desert parasitic on justice theory, collapsing distinct concepts.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Some institutional arrangements may fail moral constraints yet still correctly identify what individuals genuinely deserve.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Institutions shape what counts as deserving; unjust institutions produce spurious desert claims that lack moral force.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Without independent moral constraints on institutions, desert becomes circular: whatever the system rewards is deemed deserved.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Just basic structures prevent desert claims from laundering fundamental inequalities through meritocratic rhetoric.
?
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.