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 Luck egalitarian policy recommendations are unjustifiably harsh toward individuals who fare badly and are deemed personally responsible for their situation.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Luck egalitarian principles imply that individuals deemed personally responsible for their bad outcomes are not owed equalizing compensation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Withholding compensation from individuals who fare badly due to their own choices produces outcomes that are too harsh.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Luck egalitarianism requires institutional actors to make intrusive judgments about whether individuals' choices were truly 'free' and uncoerced.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Elizabeth Anderson argues such judgments treat unfortunate individuals as objects of pity and scrutiny rather than as equals deserving dignity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A distributive principle that systematically demeans its recipients in practice cannot be justified by its theoretical commitment to equality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Gerald Cohen's 'expensive tastes' problem shows luck egalitarianism must compensate some cultivated preferences, revealing its choice-tracing logic is incoherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the line between unchosen circumstance and chosen preference cannot be principled, then denying aid based on 'choice' is arbitrary and therefore unjust.
      ?

      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.