Rawls's own device of the original position presupposes contemporaneous persons contracting, making intergenerational ignorance a conceptual inflation of the procedure beyond its designed scope.

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

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Conceptual inflation(The statement argues that adding intergenerational concerns goes beyond what Rawls's original position was meant to do): When a concept or idea gets stretched beyond what it was originally designed to handle, making it unclear or less useful.
Contemporaneous persons(The criticism is that Rawls's original position assumes all people in the contract live together now): People who live at the same time as each other, in the same era.
Designed scope(The critique is that Rawls's device was designed for a narrower purpose than the critic is trying to use it for): The original intended purpose or range of something; what it was meant to cover or accomplish.
Intergenerational(The critique argues Rawls didn't adequately account for fairness between different generations): Involving or affecting multiple generations—past, present, and future people together.

Based on where you are in your exploration