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 difference principle conditions inequality on maximizing the position of the least advantaged, imposing no prior ceiling on redistributive demands.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Uncapped redistribution demands may eventually reduce total productive output below what maximizes the least advantaged's absolute position.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The principle fails to respect individuals' legitimate entitlements to their own labor and talents, treating them as collective resources.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Without a prior distributional ceiling, the difference principle becomes indeterminate—it cannot specify when sufficient equality has been achieved.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Arbitrary natural talents and social circumstances are morally undeserved, so inequalities stemming from them require justification to the disadvantaged.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A principle permitting inequality only when it benefits the worst-off ensures background institutions serve all members, not merely majorities or the privileged.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Without a ceiling on redistribution, society cannot ignore the least advantaged through comforting myths about meritocracy or natural desert.
?
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.