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 Rawls's cooperative scheme argument entails that distributive principles presuppose a bounded system of social rules that does not exist globally.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Rawls himself extended justice as fairness to the law of peoples, suggesting bounded schemes aren't strictly necessary for principles.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Many global problems (climate, pandemics) create de facto cooperative schemes without formal institutional boundaries.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The claim conflates practical institutional design with the logical requirements of distributive principles themselves.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Rawls's theory requires participants to know they share a closed system of mutual obligation and reciprocal benefit.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Global institutional structures lack the unified legal and political framework necessary for stable cooperative schemes.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Without bounded membership, principles of justice cannot determine fair distribution when beneficiaries and contributors are undefined.
?
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.