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 Mill's conception of rights presupposes a hierarchy of values in which some kinds of goods are superior to others
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Mill's higher pleasures doctrine ranks qualities of experience, not types of goods, leaving the structure of rights grounded in equal human dignity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A qualitative distinction among pleasures is compatible with a flat, non-hierarchical theory of rights if all persons equally possess the relevant capacities.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Rawls and Hart argue Mill's rights function as side-constraints protecting security, not as entitlements distributed according to ranked goods.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If rights protect a single paramount interest—security—rather than a spectrum of ranked goods, no hierarchy of values need be presupposed.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Mill's doctrine of higher pleasures treats the possession and use of capacities for practical deliberation as higher-order goods
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A doctrine that ranks some goods as higher-order entails a hierarchy of values
?
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.