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 Rawlsian political liberalism already concedes that the state must presuppose the good of free and equal citizenship, refuting strict neutrality from within liberal theory.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Presupposing free and equal citizenship is a thin procedural framework, not a thick conception of the good like perfectionist or religious doctrines.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rawls distinguishes between political values (legitimate for state enforcement) and comprehensive goods (requiring neutrality), so the claim conflates categories.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.All political theories require some foundational commitments; Rawls's does not refute neutrality but rather specifies its proper scope and limits.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Rawls's 'fair terms of cooperation' requires presupposing citizens as free and equal, making this a foundational political value, not mere neutrality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the state enforces any conception of justice, it endorses some view of the good (here: equal citizenship), so perfect neutrality is conceptually impossible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Rawls himself acknowledges political liberalism rests on reasonable pluralism about comprehensive goods, proving he abandoned strict state neutrality.
      ?

      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.