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 Justice requires levelling the playing field by rendering everyone's opportunities equal, and then allowing individual choices to dictate further outcomes
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
The distinction between chosen and unchosen circumstances is incoherent, since choices are themselves shaped by unchosen factors like upbringing and psychology.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If all choice-influencing conditions must be equalized before choices become legitimate, the levelling task becomes infinite and self-defeating.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Equal opportunity frameworks presuppose a competitive structure of social goods, but justice may instead require transforming those structures entirely (Anderson, 1999).
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Levelling the playing field leaves intact hierarchies of winners and losers, which democratic equality condemns regardless of procedural fairness.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Inequalities arising from unchosen circumstances are unjust and must be eliminated
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Inequalities arising from individual choices under fair and equal initial conditions are permissible
?
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.