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 Sen's impossibility result is not relevant or applicable to individual rights in social choice theory

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • Sen's 'minimal liberalism' condition uses an inadequate formalization of the notion of individual rights
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Sen's minimal liberalism condition formalizes rights as purely preference-based rankings, ignoring their deontological structure as side-constraints (Nozick).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Genuine individual rights function as constraints on social choice procedures, not as inputs to aggregation, making Sen's impossibility framework categorically inapplicable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A result derived from a mischaracterization of rights cannot generate genuine impossibilities about rights properly conceived.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Sen's theorem presupposes a welfarist framework where all normative considerations reduce to ordinal preference rankings across social states.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Individual rights in the liberal tradition (Dworkin, Rawls) are lexically prior to preference-satisfaction and thus cannot coherently participate in the trade-offs Sen's framework requires.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Theorems that assume away the foundational features of the concept they purport to analyze are conceptually external to their stated domain.
      ?

      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.