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 Genuine substantive equality of opportunity has not been achieved in a society where rigid sex-stereotyped socialization instills ambition in boys and quashes it in girls, even if Formal Equality of Opportunity (FEO) is technically satisfied.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Sally and Samantha are equally talented as Sam and Ben but far less ambitious, resulting in lesser career prospects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Sally and Samantha's reduced ambition is caused by rigid sex-stereotyped socialization, not by their native choices or talents.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Sam and Ben benefited from favorable socialization that Sally and Samantha did not receive.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rawls's fair equality of opportunity requires that prospects depend on talents and effort, not morally arbitrary contingencies like birth circumstances.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The social construction of ambition through gendered socialization is a morally arbitrary contingency structurally analogous to class-based advantage Rawls explicitly condemns.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A society permitting morally arbitrary contingencies to determine ambition violates the Rawlsian condition even when formal hiring rules are neutral.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Republican freedom, as articulated by Pettit, requires absence of domination, including internalized constraints imposed by structures of power over one's self-conception.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Sex-stereotyped socialization that suppresses ambition constitutes a systemic form of domination that shapes the will itself, not merely external obstacles to its expression.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Formal Equality of Opportunity cannot be genuine where the very preferences it relies on as 'authentic' have been systematically deformed by dominating social arrangements.
      ?

      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.