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 Kaldor's compensation criterion has dubious ethical value when compensatory transfers are not actually performed

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If compensatory transfers are not performed, the losers remain losers
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The mere possibility of compensation does not constitute actual welfare improvement for the losers
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rawls's difference principle requires that inequalities benefit the least advantaged in actuality, not merely in hypothetical possibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A criterion permitting uncompensated losses treats persons as means to aggregate welfare, violating Kantian constraints on using individuals instrumentally.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Hypothetical consent to losses one never actually recovers from cannot ground distributive legitimacy under any contractualist framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Sen's capability approach holds that justice must be evaluated by actual freedoms achieved, not potential states that remain unrealized.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kaldor-Hicks efficiency permits outcomes where identifiable individuals bear permanent welfare losses, making it structurally indistinguishable from exploitation.
      ?

      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.