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 Relational equality and luck egalitarianism need not be opposed and can both be affirmed simultaneously.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Luck egalitarianism's harsh treatment of 'undeserving' victims of bad choices structurally undermines the standing equality relational egalitarians require.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Elizabeth Anderson argues that luck egalitarianism expresses contempt toward victims of self-caused misfortune, which itself constitutes a relational inequality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A theory that institutionalizes judgments of desert-worthiness cannot simultaneously sustain relations of equal standing among citizens.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Samuel Scheffler's work shows that relational equality is grounded in social practices of mutual recognition, not distributive metrics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Luck egalitarianism's foundational premise—that unequal outcomes require justification by choice—presupposes an individualist metaphysics incompatible with relational equality's social ontology.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Affirming both simultaneously forces an incoherent hybrid whose conflict-resolution mechanism must privilege one framework, collapsing the claimed compatibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.One can affirm relational equality — that in a just society people should relate as free and equal.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.One can affirm luck egalitarianism — that people should be equal in their condition except when being worse off results from reasonable voluntary choice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.One can uphold both ideals even if they sometimes conflict.
      ?

      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.