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 Disabled persons constitute a minority whose inclusion in equal-premium contracts imposes net costs on the non-disabled majority, violating the unanimity criterion for legitimate agreement.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Everyone faces unknown future disability risk; unanimous agreement under a 'veil of ignorance' would rationally support inclusive pooling.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Equal-premium contracts reflect social insurance principles, not individual actuarial fairness; legitimacy comes from democratic choice, not unanimity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Disabled persons are not external minorities but permanent or temporary members of the same population facing shared human vulnerability.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Actuarial fairness requires premiums reflect individual risk; pooling disabled and non-disabled costs creates cross-subsidy without consent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Non-disabled persons bear predictable higher costs under equal premiums; unanimity requires all parties benefit or at least break even.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Voluntary contracts depend on informed parties accepting terms; forced redistribution violates basic contractual legitimacy principles.
      ?

      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.