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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The decomposability of inequality indices and separability of social welfare functions carry significant ethical weight, not merely technical convenience.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Separability conditions are mathematically necessary for tractable aggregation across large populations, not expressions of ethical commitments about independence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A technical constraint that enables measurement does not thereby encode the normative assumptions that would follow if the constraint were chosen on ethical grounds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Harsanyi's aggregation theorem shows separability can be derived from expected utility axioms without presupposing any stance in the egalitarianism-prioritarianism debate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Sen's capability approach and Rawlsian contractualism both generate inequality assessments that are decomposable yet explicitly reject the individualist independence assumptions Argument 1 attributes to separability.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The same formal structure of decomposability is logically compatible with relational and communitarian ethical frameworks, refuting the claim that it carries distinctively individualist ethical weight.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Separability conditions presuppose that individuals' well-beings can be evaluated independently of one another.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Whether egalitarianism or prioritarianism is correct determines whether such independence assumptions are ethically acceptable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Adopting separability implicitly takes a side in the egalitarianism-versus-prioritarianism debate.
      ?

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42