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 Strategic action to avoid egalitarian duties to needy people seems permissible if those duties arise solely from cooperative participation.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Duties of distributive justice can arise from shared subjection to coercive state institutions, not merely voluntary cooperative participation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Withdrawal from cooperative schemes rarely extricates agents from the coercive political structures Rawls identifies as the primary basis of justice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Strategic exit designed to shed justice obligations constitutes a form of free-riding that itself violates the fair terms of social cooperation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Basic human needs generate moral claims on others independently of institutional or cooperative relationships, as argued by O'Neill and Pogge in cosmopolitan traditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A duty whose avoidability renders it permissible to avoid cannot serve the action-guiding function that distinguishes genuine moral obligations from mere preferences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Egalitarian duties to needy people arise only because the needy participate in a scheme of cooperation with the non-needy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the basis of a duty is contingent participation in a cooperative scheme, then removing oneself from that scheme removes the duty.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.What is avoidable by permissible action is itself permissible to avoid.
      ?

      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.