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
    The parties in the original position should choose a savi... — Carmelics
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The parties in the original position should choose a savings principle that is fair to all generations.

    Democracy & GovernanceJustice & Punishment
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The parties in the original position do not know which era the citizens they represent live in.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When one does not know which generation one belongs to, it is rational to choose a principle fair to all generations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The veil of ignorance cannot coherently extend to generational position, since parties must assume a determinate society whose institutions already exist across time.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rawls's own device of the original position presupposes contemporaneous persons contracting, making intergenerational ignorance a conceptual inflation of the procedure beyond its designed scope.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Derek Parfit's non-identity problem shows that savings policies alter which persons exist, so future persons cannot be wronged by policies that are the very condition of their existence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A savings principle purporting to be 'fair to all generations' cannot be grounded in justice-as-reciprocity when the beneficiaries of present sacrifice are not yet determinate individuals with stable claims.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Justice & PunishmentDemocracy & Governance

    Connections

    1 topic

    Moral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    A savings principle purporting to be 'fair to all generations' cannot be grounde...Derek Parfit's non-identity problem shows that savings policies alter which pers...Rawls's own device of the original position presupposes contemporaneous persons ...The parties in the original position do not know which era the citizens they rep...
    +2 moreShow less
    The veil of ignorance cannot coherently extend to generational position, since p...When one does not know which generation one belongs to, it is rational to choose...

    Similar

    When one does not know which generation one belongs to, it is rational...81%Rawls aims to derive principles of justice from what parties would cho...71%The Pareto principle only approves changes that improve the situation ...68%When parties are fairly situated, the agreement they reach is fair to ...68%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: rawls
    View source passageHide passage
    The two parts of the argument for justice as fairness above occur at the first stage of the original position. At this first stage, the parties also agree to a principle of just savings to regulate how much each generation must save for future generations. Since the parties do not know which era the citizens they represent live in, it is rational for them to choose a savings principle that is fair to all generations. Rawls says that the parties need not choose a savings principle that requires e
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit