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 Rawls's distributive justice framework must be expanded to include caring considerations as part of the basic structure of society

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rawls's original position already accommodates dependency by representing parties who know they may be among the least advantaged members of society.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The difference principle, properly applied, generates obligations to support caregiving institutions without requiring a categorical revision of the basic structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Expanding the basic structure to include caring relations risks collapsing the public/private distinction that makes liberal rights coherent and enforceable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Susan Okin's own feminist Rawlsianism demonstrates that gender-just caring arrangements can be derived from the original position without altering Rawls's foundational architecture.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If dependency needs generate structural revisions, then every morally significant human vulnerability would demand its own categorical inclusion, making the basic structure indeterminate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Human dependency is a fundamental feature of human life that Rawlsian theory does not adequately address
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A complete theory of distributive justice must account for the needs and labor arising from human dependency
      ?

      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.