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 No end-state or patterned principle of distributive justice can be continuously realized without continuous interference with people's lives.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Even the smallest liberty—such as giving a coin to an entertainer—will alter a fixed distribution pattern over time.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.To maintain a perfect pattern after it is achieved, one would have to prohibit all further consuming, creating, trading, and giving.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hayek's spontaneous order thesis shows that economic outcomes emerge from countless decentralized decisions no central authority can predict or control.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Any patterned principle requires an authority empowered to continuously monitor, intercept, and redirect these emergent transactions to restore the target distribution.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Such continuous monitoring and redirection constitutes a standing interference with voluntary exchange, not merely occasional correction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rawls's difference principle, applied dynamically, requires perpetual institutional adjustment as market outcomes diverge from the mandated arrangement.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Each such adjustment necessarily overrides the prior voluntary choices of individuals who acted within the rules as they stood, retroactively penalizing legitimate action.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A regime that systematically penalizes legitimate voluntary action to restore a pattern treats persons as means to distributive ends, violating Kantian constraints on persons as ends in themselves.
      ?

      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.