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
    Reciprocity obligations do not divide neatly state by state. — Carmelics
    Home/Democracy & Governance
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Reciprocity obligations do not divide neatly state by state.

    Democracy & GovernanceSocial Contract
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rawls's Law of Peoples acknowledges that the basic structure of global society generates duties that transcend any single domestic social contract.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If justice-generating cooperation extends beyond state borders, then reciprocity obligations tracking that cooperation cannot be bounded by state membership alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Global economic interdependence creates enforceable claims between distant strangers who never consented to a shared domestic scheme.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Pogge's institutional cosmopolitanism holds that shared coercive institutions—not shared citizenship—ground distributive obligations among persons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The WTO, IMF, and global financial architecture impose binding constraints on non-members, constituting coercive cooperation that generates reciprocal obligations across states.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The law-abidingness of neighbors in Mexico is more crucial to physical security in Southern California than the law-abidingness of fellow citizens in Maine or Florida.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Treaties and peaceful relations among militarily armed states, produced by peaceable desires of people across all states, are immensely important to physical security in all potentially threatening nations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Cross-border cooperative contributions to basic security are as significant as intra-state contributions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Democracy & GovernanceSocial Contract

    Related

    Cross-border cooperative contributions to basic security are as significant as i...Global economic interdependence creates enforceable claims between distant stran...If justice-generating cooperation extends beyond state borders, then reciprocity...Pogge's institutional cosmopolitanism holds that shared coercive institutions—no...
    +4 moreShow less
    Rawls's Law of Peoples acknowledges that the basic structure of global society g...The WTO, IMF, and global financial architecture impose binding constraints on no...The law-abidingness of neighbors in Mexico is more crucial to physical security ...Treaties and peaceful relations among militarily armed states, produced by peace...

    Similar

    Obedience is not owed to the state on the basis of the state's authori...75%Egalitarian principles of justice are triggered within each state, not...75%Self-rule takes precedence over any political obligation regardless of...74%Familial obligations, such as those of children to parents, do not inv...72%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: egalitarianism
    View source passageHide passage
    This line of thought prompts several questions. If stringent egalitarian duties to needy people arise only because the needy participate in a scheme of cooperation with the non-needy, then strategic action to avoid the duties seems permissible. If the rich separate from the poor and form their own distinct political communities, the reciprocity argument will no longer support the claim that the rich have substantial obligations to the poor. One might question whether genuine justice obligations
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit