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
    Egalitarian rights of global scope are not ruled out by t... — Carmelics
    Home/Rights & Liberty
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Egalitarian rights of global scope are not ruled out by the justification for coercive states.

    Rights & Liberty
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The justification for coercive states appeals to protection of important rights for both insiders and outsiders.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Nothing in the justification of coercive states restricts protected rights to a non-egalitarian or purely domestic scope.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The justification for coercive states is grounded in reciprocal obligations among co-citizens who share burdens of legal compliance (Rawls, Law of Peoples).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Egalitarian distributive rights presuppose a scheme of social cooperation whose binding obligations do not extend to the global level.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the domestic scope of coercive state justification restricts egalitarian rights to co-citizens, not all persons globally.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.States are justified by their capacity to enforce determinate rights-assignments that require territorial monopoly on legitimate force (Wellman, coercive state theory).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A global egalitarian rights framework lacks any analogous enforcement mechanism and thus cannot derive legitimacy from the same justificatory structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Rights & Liberty

    Connections

    1 topic

    Social Contract2 linked

    Related

    A global egalitarian rights framework lacks any analogous enforcement mechanism ...Egalitarian distributive rights presuppose a scheme of social cooperation whose ...Nothing in the justification of coercive states restricts protected rights to a ...States are justified by their capacity to enforce determinate rights-assignments...
    +3 moreShow less
    The justification for coercive states appeals to protection of important rights ...The justification for coercive states is grounded in reciprocal obligations amon...Therefore, the domestic scope of coercive state justification restricts egalitar...

    Similar

    Nothing in the justification of coercive states restricts protected ri...87%The justification for coercive states appeals to protection of importa...82%The requirement for egalitarian justification of state coercion is lim...81%Rights are constitutively coercive, since every right restricts others...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: egalitarianism
    View source passageHide passage
    This argument will not do as it stands because there might be cases in which imposition of coercion is neither unconditionally right nor unconditionally wrong but rather conditionally acceptable—acceptable provided adequate compensation is paid to those whose autonomy is burdened by the coercion. Are there such cases? Perhaps conscription of youth for military service in a just war can be morally permissible, but only if compensation is paid to those coerced into this arduous and dangerous servi
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit