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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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