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 principles selected in the original position must be ... — Carmelics
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The principles selected in the original position must be recognizable as principles of justice, not merely utility-maximizing principles.

    Justice & PunishmentSocial Contract
    ?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.Rawls aims to derive principles of justice from what parties would choose in an original position.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If parties simply maximized the weighted sum of primary goods averaged across all persons, the resulting principle would be indistinguishable from utilitarianism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Rawls explicitly rejects utilitarianism as a theory of justice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Harsanyi demonstrates that rational agents behind a veil of ignorance with equal probability of being any person will maximize expected utility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the original position's epistemic constraints logically entail utilitarian choice, Rawls cannot stipulate non-utilitarian outcomes without abandoning the contractarian derivation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The distinction between 'justice' and 'utility-maximization' cannot be preserved by procedural constraints alone if those constraints already embed contested substantive values.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.R.M. Hare argues that impartiality, not risk-aversion, is the defining feature of moral reasoning under ignorance of one's position.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rawls's maximin rule reflects a psychologically contingent risk-aversion that rational contractors are not compelled to adopt, as Arrow and others have argued.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If maximin is not rationally required in the original position, the exclusion of utilitarian principles reflects Rawls's prior moral commitments, not a neutral derivation.
      ?

      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 & PunishmentSocial Contract

    Connections

    1 topic

    Consequentialism2 linked

    Related

    Harsanyi demonstrates that rational agents behind a veil of ignorance with equal...If maximin is not rationally required in the original position, the exclusion of...If parties simply maximized the weighted sum of primary goods averaged across al...If the original position's epistemic constraints logically entail utilitarian ch...
    +5 moreShow less
    R.M. Hare argues that impartiality, not risk-aversion, is the defining feature o...Rawls aims to derive principles of justice from what parties would choose in an ...Rawls explicitly rejects utilitarianism as a theory of justice.Rawls's maximin rule reflects a psychologically contingent risk-aversion that ra...The distinction between 'justice' and 'utility-maximization' cannot be preserved...

    Similar

    Familiar principles of justice can be given a utilitarian rationale87%Rawls aims to derive principles of justice from what parties would cho...85%Retributive justice can be tied to deeper moral principles.82%Departures from basic principles of justice create an obligation to co...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: justice
    View source passageHide passage
    The problem for Rawls, however, is to show that the principles that would be selected in such an original position are in fact recognizable as principles of justice. One might expect the parties to calculate how to weigh the primary goods (which Rawls catalogues as ‘rights and liberties, opportunities and powers, income and wealth’) against each other, and then to choose as their social principle ‘maximise the weighted sum of primary goods, averaged across all persons’. This, however, would brin
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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