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 Preferring non-disabled individual B over disabled individual A is acceptable when treatment to A would be a total waste of a scarce resource

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The claim that treatment is 'totally wasted' on A presupposes a narrow, cure-oriented conception of medical benefit that excludes pain relief, dignity, and palliative value.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Norman Daniels and Frances Kamm both argue that 'benefit' in allocation must include improvements to a person's condition relative to their baseline, not merely restoration to species-typical functioning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Defining waste by reference to a non-disabled norm systematically disadvantages disabled persons by embedding their disadvantage into the very metric used to evaluate their claims.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Elizabeth Anderson's relational egalitarianism holds that just institutions must treat each person as a full social equal, not merely maximize aggregate welfare across persons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Using disability status as a tiebreaker for resource allocation treats the disabled person's life as inherently less worth sustaining, which violates the equal moral standing that grounds any legitimate allocation scheme.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The supporting argument's P3 assumes the fairness of outcomes without examining whether the prior social failure to accommodate disability created the conditions making treatment appear 'wasteful' in the first place.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Treatment effectiveness for A is completely negated by A's condition
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Allocating scarce resources where they produce no benefit is wasteful
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.It would be unfair to allocate a resource to A if B could genuinely benefit from it
      ?

      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.