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
    Government policy should not be justified by appeal to th... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Rights & Liberty
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Government policy should not be justified by appeal to the claim that some controversial conception of the good is superior to another

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Citizens in pluralist societies hold irreconcilably different comprehensive doctrines that cannot be adjudicated by neutral reason (Rawls, Political Liberalism).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Legitimate political authority requires justification acceptable to all reasonable citizens, not merely those who share the governing conception of the good.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Policies grounded in contested conceptions of the good coerce dissenters on terms they have no rational basis to accept, violating their status as free and equal persons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Mill's harm principle establishes that the only legitimate basis for collective coercion is preventing harm to others, not enforcing contested visions of human flourishing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When the state endorses one conception of the good over rivals, it structurally advantages adherents of that conception, distorting the fair political equality of citizens.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • It is wrong for government to impose policies that can only be justified by appeal to contested value rankings among conceptions of the good
      ?

      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 & LibertyDemocracy & Governance

    Related

    Citizens in pluralist societies hold irreconcilably different comprehensive doct...It is wrong for government to impose policies that can only be justified by appe...Legitimate political authority requires justification acceptable to all reasonab...Mill's harm principle establishes that the only legitimate basis for collective ...
    +2 moreShow less
    Policies grounded in contested conceptions of the good coerce dissenters on term...When the state endorses one conception of the good over rivals, it structurally ...

    Similar

    It is wrong for government to impose policies that can only be justifi...83%Introducing a controversial conception of human good into the ideal of...75%Republican policies are best defended empirically on the basis of the ...74%If a conception is known to be true, its controversial status does not...72%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: egalitarianism
    View source passageHide passage
    A third feature of the capability approach that has elicited criticism is the idea that knowledge of human flourishing and what facilitates it must inform the identification of an adequate equality norm. The worry in a nutshell is that in modern societies that secure wide freedoms, people will embrace many opposed conceptions of how to live and of what is choiceworthy in human life. These are matters about which we must agree to disagree. At least if an ideal of equality is being constructed to
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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