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 FEO must be supplemented with a continuity requirement to be action-guiding

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.FEO already contains sufficient action-guidance through its core requirement that social positions be open to all with equal native talent and motivation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rawls's original formulation intentionally leaves implementation details to institutions, avoiding over-specification that would colonize legitimate political deliberation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Adding a continuity requirement smuggles in a substantive egalitarian metric that FEO was never designed to satisfy, conflating procedural fairness with outcome-sensitive redistribution.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The indeterminacy problem identified is a feature of any principle applied to complex social systems, not a defect specific to FEO requiring supplementation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Norman Daniels and others have shown that FEO can be rendered action-guiding through institutional specification without importing continuity constraints that risk collapsing FEO into luck egalitarianism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.FEO as stated is silent about policy choices that produce divergent results for individuals with different talents
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A sensible continuity requirement would hold that individuals whose capacities to develop skills are 'close' should not end up with 'too dissimilar' competitive outcomes
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without such a requirement, FEO fails to address the indeterminacy problem posed by regime-relative talent discovery
      ?

      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.