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 Dworkin argues rights function as 'trumps' against utilitarian calculation, requiring equal weight regardless of deliberative centrality.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Rights-as-trumps doctrine provides no principled way to resolve conflicts when multiple fundamental rights collide.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Absolute rights constraints can produce worse outcomes than modest utilitarian adjustments, harming the very people rights protect.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Dworkin's equal weight requirement arbitrarily privileges certain rights over others without justifying why dignity requires this absolutism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Utilitarian aggregation permits systematic oppression of minorities if majority happiness increases sufficiently.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rights as trumps protect fundamental human dignity by preventing individuals from being mere means to collective welfare.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Equal weight for all rights respects persons as moral agents with inviolable interests, not interchangeable utility units.
      ?

      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.