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 the goal is maximizing welfare rather than health, disability may become irrelevant as a distributive criterion.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Maximizing welfare requires accounting for all consequential welfare advances linked to health improvements, such as opportunity to develop talents, better job prospects, and a more stable family life.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.These broader welfare benefits linked to health improvements may overwhelm the negative welfare impact of disability.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, disability need not be the decisive factor in welfare-maximizing health care allocation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Preference satisfaction theories (Hare, Brandt) measure welfare by fulfilled desires, not biological function, making disability status independently irrelevant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A disabled person with fully satisfied preferences registers equal or greater welfare than a non-disabled person with frustrated preferences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, disability as a category drops out of welfare-maximizing calculus when preference satisfaction is the operative metric.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Objection 1 conflates welfare with opportunity-based goods, smuggling in non-welfarist criteria like talent development that are foreign to strict consequentialism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Sen's capability approach, which grounds such opportunity arguments, is explicitly non-welfarist and cannot rescue a welfarist framework from the irrelevance of disability.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A consistent welfare maximizer must reject opportunity metrics as foundational, leaving disability without independent distributive weight.
      ?

      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.