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 deliberately brackets comprehensive doctrines of personhood to preserve democratic pluralism across divergent conceptions of the self.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Bracketing personhood doctrines is impossible; principles of equality and autonomy already embed liberal conceptions of the self.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This neutrality claim masks substantive choices favoring individualistic over communal or religious understandings of human identity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Citizens' deepest convictions about personhood inevitably shape policy preferences, making true bracketing psychologically unrealistic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Bracketing comprehensive doctrines prevents majoritarian imposition of particular conceptions of human flourishing on minorities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Political liberalism's neutrality enables citizens with fundamentally incompatible worldviews to coexist under shared institutions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Focusing on overlapping consensus regarding rights sidesteps intractable metaphysical disputes about personhood that paralyze legislation.
      ?

      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.