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 reflective equilibrium demonstrates that judgments can achieve principled coherence between rules and particular cases without residual injustice.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Coherence among one's beliefs does not guarantee those beliefs are *just*—consensus can reflect shared biases or entrenched injustices.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Reflective equilibrium privileges privileged people's intuitions; historically marginalized groups' considered convictions may remain unheard.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Some injustices are structural and invisible to individual judgment—coherent frameworks can perpetuate them while appearing neutral.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Reflective equilibrium iteratively refines principles until they align with considered moral convictions, reducing internal contradictions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Coherence between abstract rules and concrete cases provides rational justification that ad-hoc reasoning or pure intuition cannot achieve.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Justice systems must operate on stable, generalizable principles—reflective equilibrium enables this without abandoning particular moral insights.
?
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.