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 Formal universal equality of opportunity is not inherently inappropriate for assessing people's engagement in personal, private, and intimate interaction.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Personal relationships derive their moral character precisely from the agent's freedom to select on particularist grounds, including affection and shared identity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Applying formal equality norms to intimate association colonizes a sphere that liberal theory, following Mill and later Rawls, designates as beyond the reach of justice's distributive logic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A norm that 'restrains interaction formation' in personal contexts contradicts the basic liberal commitment to freedom of association as a foundational, not derivative, right.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Bernard Williams's argument from integrity holds that moral frameworks requiring agents to treat personal commitments as subject to impartial scrutiny alienate persons from their own ground projects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Friendship and intimate association are constitutively defined by partiality — Aristotle's philia requires preferential concern — so 'opportunity' norms are categorically inapplicable, not merely inappropriate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Extending formal equality to personal selection does not merely regulate discrimination; it misidentifies the evaluative structure of the domain, committing a category error in normative application.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Even merit-free interactions like friendship involve some criteria for selection.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Universal formal equality of opportunity plays a regulatory role even in merit-free interactions by ruling out discriminatory bases for selection.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The norm of formal universal equality of opportunity has substantive content when applied to personal interaction, restraining certain types of interaction formation.
      ?

      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.