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 egalitarianism is objectionable because it requires distributive agencies to conduct intrusive and disrespectful inquiries into individuals' personal traits.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.To establish that a badly-off person is owed equalizing compensation, luck egalitarianism must determine whether that person is personally responsible for their misfortune.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Making that determination requires distributive agencies to issue public negative assessments of individuals' traits.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Such intrusive inquiries and public negative assessments are disrespectful to the individuals subjected to them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rawlsian political liberalism holds that just institutions must remain neutral on contested conceptions of the good life and personal worth.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Luck egalitarianism requires the state to publicly rank some life choices as imprudent or irresponsible, violating this neutrality constraint.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Any distributive scheme that systematically degrades citizens' self-respect undermines the social bases of self-respect, a primary good Rawls identifies as foundational.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Elizabeth Anderson argues that democratic equality requires institutions to treat all citizens as moral equals capable of self-governance, not as subjects of bureaucratic scrutiny.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Luck egalitarianism structurally converts distributive agencies into moral auditors who must adjudicate the authenticity of preferences and the genuineness of disabilities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Foucauldian analysis demonstrates that such auditing practices produce normalizing power relations that subordinate individuals to institutional judgment about their inner lives.
      ?

      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.