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 Favoring a non-disabled individual B over a disabled individual A is arbitrary and unfair when the quality-of-life gap between them is minimal

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Resource allocation must consider aggregate welfare across populations, not just pairwise comparisons between individuals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A policy permitting 'minimal gap' exceptions systematically undermines consistent, scalable rationing frameworks like QALYs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Norman Daniels argues just health systems require fair procedures, not case-by-case deviation based on contested gap assessments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Elizabeth Anderson's relational egalitarianism holds that equality concerns social standing, not equalizing welfare outcomes between individuals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Preferring B over A based on projected quality-of-life gaps, however minimal, still treats disability as a welfare-relevant criterion rather than a morally irrelevant trait.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim assumes a cardinal, interpersonally comparable welfare scale that most anti-welfarist philosophers, including Sen and Nussbaum, reject as ethically inappropriate for allocation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.When the difference in quality of life between A and B after treatment is minimal, there is no substantial utilitarian justification for preferring B
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Arbitrary distinctions in resource allocation are unfair
      ?

      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.