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 Nozick's entitlement theory holds that rectificatory duties require traceable, identifiable chains of specific injustice to specific victims.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Systemic injustices (slavery, colonialism) harm descendants structurally even without traceable individual chains of causation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The requirement for traceable chains may be practically impossible for historical wrongs, making justice perpetually unachievable.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Nozick's standard ignores how institutions compound injustice; victims' harms spread across populations in ways not individually traceable.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Justice requires matching remedies to actual wrongs; vague collective guilt distributes compensation arbitrarily and unfairly.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Without traceable chains, we cannot distinguish legitimate restitution from redistribution disguised as justice.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Identifying specific victims respects their agency by acknowledging them as particular persons wronged, not abstract groups.
?
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.