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
    R.M. Hare argues that impartiality, not risk-aversion, is... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The principles selected in the original position must be recognizable as principles of justice, not merely utility-maximizing principles.

    R.M. Hare argues that impartiality, not risk-aversion, is the defining feature of moral reasoning under ignorance of one's position.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Moral reasoning requires treating all affected parties equally; ignorance of position eliminates self-serving bias, enabling true impartiality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Risk-aversion reflects personal psychology, not moral principle; impartiality captures what's universalizable across rational agents.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Hare's universalizability criterion—that moral principles apply equally to all—logically grounds impartiality, not prudential risk calculations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Under genuine uncertainty about one's position, rational agents naturally adopt risk-averse strategies; dismissing this conflates impartiality with irrationality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Ignoring risk-aversion produces counterintuitive results: impartial reasoning might endorse highly unequal distributions if they benefit some greatly.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Rawls's veil of ignorance—inspired by similar reasoning—actually requires maximin thinking, suggesting risk-aversion is essential to fair moral design.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Social Contract1 linkedJustice & Punishment1 linked

    Related

    Hare's universalizability criterion—that moral principles apply equally to all—l...Ignoring risk-aversion produces counterintuitive results: impartial reasoning mi...Moral reasoning requires treating all affected parties equally; ignorance of pos...Rawls's veil of ignorance—inspired by similar reasoning—actually requires maximi...
    +3 moreShow less
    Risk-aversion reflects personal psychology, not moral principle; impartiality ca...The principles selected in the original position must be recognizable as princip...Under genuine uncertainty about one's position, rational agents naturally adopt ...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit