Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that John Rawls argues that rational contractors behind the veil of ignorance would endorse certain paternalistic protections to guard against future incapacity.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Contractors behind the veil wouldn't distinguish between self-protective limits and unjustified paternalism, risking endorsement of excessive state control.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Rawls's framework assumes rational contractors can coherently predict and consent to their future incapacity, but this involves logical paradox about prospective autonomy.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Actual paternalistic protections often reflect social prejudices rather than rational self-interest, making the veil's theoretical endorsement misleading about real-world application.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Rational self-interest behind the veil includes protecting one's future self from decisions made during periods of diminished capacity or judgment.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Paternalistic safeguards (advance directives, guardianship laws) are consistent with autonomy when they reflect one's earlier, fuller rational choices.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The veil of ignorance models genuine uncertainty: contractors cannot know if they'll face dementia, addiction, or mental illness requiring protective intervention.
?
How convincing is this?
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.