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 If all current and future persons are entitled to equal per capita greenhouse gas emissions, each person's share would be close to zero.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Equal per capita entitlement divides total permissible emissions by the number of entitled persons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The number of current and future persons included in the calculation is very large.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Dividing a finite emissions budget among a very large number of persons yields a share approaching zero.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The atmosphere's remaining carbon budget is physically finite, bounded by the 1.5-2°C thresholds established in IPCC assessments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rawlsian intergenerational justice requires that no generation depletes shared natural capital in ways that worsen the position of the least advantaged future persons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.When a finite budget is divided equally across billions of current and future persons under these constraints, arithmetic necessarily yields a near-zero individual share.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Henry Shue's foundational distinction between subsistence and luxury emissions entails that only survival-level emissions can be morally justified under conditions of genuine scarcity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Under genuine atmospheric scarcity, equal per capita shares converging toward zero is not a reductio but a precise quantification of how severely past overconsumption has foreclosed future entitlements.
      ?

      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.