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 The contractualist justification for the equal-premium insurance scheme risks collapsing into egalitarianism.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If the argument from reasonable rejectability justifies insurance against disability, a parallel argument could justify insurance against any form of bad luck.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Extending the argument to all bad luck would yield a strongly egalitarian distributive principle.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rawls's veil of ignorance reasoning abstracts from all contingent features of persons, making disability morally equivalent to any other unchosen disadvantage.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Once contractualist reasoning treats unchosen disadvantage as a basis for legitimate insurance claims, the distinction between disability and other natural misfortune becomes arbitrary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Scanlon's reasonable rejectability test applies symmetrically: any principle permitting uncompensated natural disadvantage is rejectable by the worst-off, collapsing into Rawlsian difference-principle egalitarianism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.G.A. Cohen's critique of Rawls demonstrates that contractualist premises about unchosen circumstances, once universalized, demand compensation for all brute luck disadvantages.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An equal-premium insurance scheme justified by appeal to unchosen disability status implicitly endorses luck egalitarianism's core principle that undeserved inequalities require rectification.
      ?

      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.